Is a homemade cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) trainer non-inferior to a commercially available CPR mannequin in teaching high-quality CPR? A non-inferiority randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies demonstrate that feedback devices help students achieve mastery of critical CPR skills and shorten the time from demonstration to competence. CPR feedback devices are costly and may not be available in low resource settings or in the context of online classes. We have developed a homemade feedback enabled CPR trainer. This trainer consists of a lid with two toilet rolls stacked on top. We have shown it is feasible to generate high quality CPR using this trainer, however the ability for this trainer to successfully be used in skill acquisition is unknown.Our main objective was to assess if learning CPR on a homemade toilet paper trainer was non-inferior to a commercially available mannequin when comparing post-training CPR scores. METHODS: We conducted a parallel non-inferiority randomized control trial using a variable block randomization to a 10-min training session on either a toilet paper or commercial mannequin trainer. Primary outcome was mean overall CPR score as determined by high fidelity mannequin software. A sample size of 62 per group was calculated based on a 90% power to assess for the lower limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval above the non-inferiority limit of 10%. RESULTS: 125 participants were randomized to the toilet paper (n = 64) or commercial mannequin trainer (n = 61). There was no difference between groups in age, sex, height, weight or previous CPR training. There was an absolute difference of 2% (CI 95% 3.3 to 7.3%) in mean overall CPR score between groups (toilet paper = 82% (SD 15.9%), commercial mannequin = 84% (SD 15%). CONCLUSION: A homemade CPR trainer was non-inferior to a commercially available trainer. This study provides preliminary evidence supporting the use of a homemade, easily accessible trainer for basic compression-only CPR skill acquisition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".