Trial reportFrontiers in public health2026
The effect of a novel wearable feedback device on cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in medical students: a three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While real-time feedback devices are proven to improve skill mastery in CPR training, current options are often suboptimal due to high costs, skin irritation, and single-functionality constraints. To overcome these limitations, we engineered a novel wearable feedback device, the accuracy of which was validated in our prior research. Furthermore, we conceptualized a hybrid training paradigm combining real-time feedback with deliberate practice. Given the current lack of efficacy data for this approach, this study aims to assess the device's real-world training performance and investigate whether this hybrid training approach can further optimize resuscitation training outcomes. Methods: Students from Chongqing Medical University were recruited and randomly assigned to three groups: traditional training (Group A), real-time feedback training (Group B), or real-time feedback plus deliberate practice training (Group C). All participants were required to perform 2 min of chest compressions on CPR manikins. The primary outcomes were the proportion of correct compression depth (50-60 mm) and adequate compression rate (100-120 min Results: A total of 618 participants were randomly assigned to Group A ( Conclusion: In conclusion, within the academic setting of a medical university, this novel feedback device improved CPR performance in compression depth and rate among medical students compared to traditional training. Furthermore, the hybrid training method combining real-time feedback and deliberate practice further enhanced training efficacy regarding chest compression depth in this population. However, these findings require independent replication in broader populations and diverse clinical settings before widespread implementation recommendations can be made.
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.