Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40230367›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2025

Use of CPR feedback devices in resuscitation training: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yiqun Lin, Andrew Lockey, Aaron Donoghue, Robert Greif, Andrea Cortegiani, Barbara Farquharson, Fahad Javaid Siddiqui, Arna Banerjee, Tasuku Matsuyama, Adam Cheng and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07029724 (Comparison of Standard CPR and CPR Feedback Devices in Terms of the Effectiveness of Chest Compressions During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT07029724 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Standard CPR and CPR Feedback Devices in Terms of the Effectiveness of Chest Compressions During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

TypeinterventionalSponsorBetül Akbuğa ÖzelRan2016 to 2016Enrolled83ConditionsCPR Quality AssessmentArmsTrueCPR Multisensory Feedback Device, Ambu Smartman ALS Pro+ (AW301) Simulation Manikin, Metronome
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

11 authors.

Yiqun LinKidSIM-ASPIRE Simulation Research Program, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Andrew LockeyEmergency Department, Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust, Halifax, UK.
Aaron DonoghuePICU, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Robert GreifFaculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrea CortegianiDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care Area (Me.Pre.C.C.) University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Barbara FarquharsonNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professional's Research Unit (NMAHP), Faculty of Health Sciences & Sport, University of Stirling, UK.
Fahad Javaid SiddiquiCochrane Singapore, Singapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore.
Arna BanerjeeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Surgery and Medical Education, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Tasuku MatsuyamaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Adam ChengDepartment of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada.
Education Implementation Team Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices during training is increasing. This review evaluates whether incorporating CPR feedback devices in training improves patient survival, CPR quality in actual resuscitation, skill acquisition and retention after training. Methods: This systematic review was part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases from inception to September 30, 2024, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages (with an English abstract) comparing CPR training with and without feedback devices. Outcome included patient survival, quality of clinical performance in resuscitation, and CPR skill acquisition and retention. Non-RCT studies, unpublished work without peer review or animal studies were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools, and certainty of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated and pooled effects were analyzed using random-effects models. PROSPERO CRD42023488130. Results: We identified 20 RCTs with 4579 participants. Risks of bias ranged from low to critical (low: 8, moderate: 9, and critical: 3). No studies evaluated the patient survival, clinical performance in resuscitation or cost-effectiveness. Compared to no feedback, using CPR feedback devices during training significantly improved key quality metrics. Pooled effect sizes were 0.76 (95%CI 0.02 - 1.50) for mean compression depth (15 studies), 0.98 (95%CI: 0.10 - 1.87) for depth compliance (16 studies), 0.29 (95%CI: 0.10 - 0.48) for mean rate (17 studies), 0.44 (95%CI: 0.23 - 0.66) for rate compliance (9 studies), and 0.53 (95%CI: 0.31 - 0.75) for recoil compliance (10 studies) in favour of using feedback devices during training. Heterogeneity was large (I Conclusion: The use of CPR feedback devices during resuscitation training improves key quality metrics of CPR performance, with moderate to high certainty of evidence. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the impact on cost-effectiveness, clinical performance and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Basic Life SupportCPR FeedbackMedical EducationResuscitationTraining

Identifiers

PMID40230367
PMCPMC11995796

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.