ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation coaching for resuscitation teams: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality is often substandard to guidelines for resuscitation teams. We aimed to investigate if the use of a CPR coach as part of the resuscitation team can improve teamwork, quality of care, and patient outcomes during simulated and clinical cardiac arrest resuscitation. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception until October 9, 2024 for randomized trials and observational studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. PROSPERO CRD42024603212. Results: We screened 505 records and included 7 studies. Overall, 6 were randomized studies involving pediatric resuscitation of which 4 studies were secondary analyses of one simulation-based trial, and one was an observational study on adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Reported outcomes were: CPR performance in a simulated setting (n = 3), workload in a simulated setting (n = 2), adherence to guidelines in a simulated setting (n = 1), team communication in a simulated setting (n = 1), and clinical CPR performance (n = 1). All studies suggested improved CPR quality and guideline adherence when using a CPR coach compared to not using a coach. Risk of bias varied from low to critical and the certainty of evidence across outcomes was low or very low. Conclusions: We identified low- to very-low certainty of evidence supporting the use of a CPR coach as part of the resuscitation team in order to improve CPR quality and guideline adherence. However, further research is needed, in particular for clinical performance and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.