Stepwise approach to skills teaching in resuscitation: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To compare the effectiveness of Peyton’s four-step approach for teaching resuscitation skills with alternative approaches. For this systematic review, we followed the PICOST format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) using Peyton’s four-step approach as the standard. We included all studies analyzing skills training related to resuscitation and First Aid in any educational setting. Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, published conference abstracts, and case series where n ≥ 5). We excluded unpublished results (e.g. trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until November 10, 2020 (updated November 25, 2022) for publications in all languages as long as there was an English abstract. Titles and abstracts of the papers retrieved were screened, and eligible publications were analysed in full text. From the final set of papers, data were extracted into a spreadsheet, subsequently risk of bias assessment was performed (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (using GRADE) for each paper was assessed. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and assessment of certainty of evidence were all performed by two independent researchers. This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023377398). Overall, the search identified 2,574 studies from which 17 were included in the final analysis (14 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs). The studies involved a total of 2,906 participants from various populations (from lay persons to health care professionals) and analysed nine different resuscitation skills being taught (ranging from chest compressions to needle cricotomy). The alternative teaching approaches ranged from two-steps to five-steps with various modifications of single steps. High methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis from being conducted. The risk of bias assessment showed considerable variation between the studies ranging from ‘low’ to ‘serious’. Across all studies, certainty of evidence was rated as very low due to imprecision and inconsistency. Overall, 14 out of 17 studies showed no difference in skill acquisition or retention when comparing Peyton’s four steps to other stepwise approaches. Very low certainty evidence suggest that Peyton’s four-step approach was not more effective in resuscitation skills training compared to alternative approaches. None.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».