Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39185285›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2024

Real-time feedback for CPR quality - A scoping review.

Siobhán Masterson, Tatsuya Norii, Mio Yabuki, Takaya Ikeyama, Ziad Nehme, Janet Bray, BLS ILCOR Task Force

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Siobhán MastersonNational Ambulance Service, Health Service Executive, Limerick, Ireland.
Tatsuya NoriiSchool of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, United States.
Mio YabukiFaculty of Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Takaya IkeyamaCenter for Pediatric Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Aichi Children's Health and Medical Center, Japan.
Ziad NehmeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia.
Janet BrayPrehospital, Resuscitation and Emergency Care Research Unit (PRECRU), Curtin University, Australia.
BLS ILCOR Task Force

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous systematic reviews have failed to find an association between the use of real-time feedback during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and patient outcomes. However, these reviews excluded studies examining feedback with other system changes. As part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) continuous evidence evaluation process, we conducted a scoping review to examine the current state of this literature and the use of real-time feedback in this form. Methods/Data sources: A protocol and search strategy was developed. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to May 2024. Cochrane (Cochrane (specifically, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) is contained in Medline so was not searched separately. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published or unpublished (grey-literature) studies involving children or adults that examined the effect of real-time feedback or prompting on the quality of CPR following cardiac arrest. Data were extracted and audited independently. For each study, the following information were extracted: the author(s); year of publication; timeframe; study design; country; population; intervention and comparator; type of feedback or prompt; outcomes measured; main findings for CPR quality, and; main findings for patient outcomes. Reviewers also allocated key themes to each study and held a series of consensus discussions to consolidate themes across the included studies. Results: We screened 2,657 titles and included 60 studies. Our analysis identified five overlapping themes in the extended literature: system change and quality improvement; impact on patient outcomes; better CPR quality without improved patient outcome; CPR feedback as a generator of other CPR metrics; and CPR feedback as a potential harm. Results revealed a substantial adjacent literature, particularly on implementing high-performance CPR as part of quality improvement programs. Conclusions: This scoping review has identified a large body of literature and specific themes of interest in relation to feedback for CPR quality. Future systematic reviews should include studies examining real-time feedback with other system changes.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary resuscitationCPR feedback devicesReal-time CPR feedbackScoping review

Identifiers

PMID39185285
PMCPMC11341937

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.