MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162441220 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100134

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

2021· article· en· W3162441220 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsEarl Haig Secondary SchoolNOSM UniversityQueen's UniversityScience North
FundersNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
KeywordsTrainerRandomized controlled trialCardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineCompetence (human resources)Physical therapyComputer sciencePsychologySurgeryResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it