ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a simulated environment: A pilot exploratory study evaluating first responder adherence and dispatcher performance.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Terminology matters: distinguishing bystanders from first responders in resuscitation science.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
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
Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a major public health challenge, and telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR) is a key strategy to improve survival. However, real-time analyses of dispatcher-rescuer interaction are scarce. Methods: A pilot study was conducted in the Valencian Community (Spain) using simulated OHCA scenarios to evaluate first responder adherence to T-CPR instructions and dispatcher performance. This exploratory study included six untrained lay callers and six dispatchers (five nurses, one physician) who participated in simulated emergency calls routed through the regional emergency coordination center (CICU). All calls were audiovisually recorded and analysed using a checklist derived from ERC 2021/AHA 2020 guidelines. Technical CPR parameters were collected from a manikin with QCPR technology. Results: Time to cardiac arrest recognition varied widely (50 s-3:48 min), with overall delays exceeding 5 min in two cases. Basic instructions (supine position, hand placement) were consistently communicated, but only 50 % of dispatchers emphasized correct compression depth. Interruptions in CPR occurred in four of six cases. Lay responders reliably followed simple instructions but struggled with technical aspects: only 33.3 % achieved adequate compression depth and rate. Significant correlations were observed between compression depth, rate, and rescuer age (ρ = -0.868; p = 0.025). AED use was systematically omitted. Conclusions: This pilot study highlights variability in dispatcher recognition times and inconsistencies in communication of critical CPR parameters. First responders adhered better to simple than technical instructions. Findings underscore the need for structured, standardized protocols and enhanced dispatcher training to optimize T-CPR effectiveness.
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.