ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Adaptation of the CONOCES-BLS scale to citizens: evidence of content validity and preliminary psychometric evaluation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest constitutes a high-priority health emergency. The evidence underlines the importance of early actions of bystanders through the activation of the emergency system, basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and defibrillation. Nevertheless, basic life support training in the general population is irregular, and limitations exist on the availability of validated instruments to assess knowledge in this area. Objective: To adapt the CONOCES-BLS scale for use in the adult general population and to obtain initial evidence supporting its content validity through expert consensus, followed by a preliminary psychometric evaluation. Method: Methodological study on the adaptation and content validity and preliminary test of the instrument in three phases. In the first, the items were adapted to the context of an adult citizen. Then, content validity was assessed through a Delphi panel, and lastly, a pilot test was conducted for the initial psychometric analysis. Results: The content validity showed high levels of agreement, >0.90 in every item, and Conclusion: The adapted CONOCES-BLS-Citizens scale provides initial evidence supporting its content validity for assessing BLS knowledge in the adult general population. As the first instrument specifically adapted for this purpose, it may support the evaluation of community BLS knowledge. Further studies are needed to strengthen the psychometric evidence supporting its use.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.