Deconstructing resuscitation training for healthcare providers: a protocol for a component network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The necessity of enhancing resuscitation training has been encouraged by The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and the American Heart Association to reduce mortality, disability and healthcare costs. Resuscitation training is a complicated approach that encompasses various components and their mixture. It is essential to identify the most effective of these components and their combinations, to measure the corresponding effect size and to understand which participant groups may enjoy the greatest advantage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search 12 databases and two clinical trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examine different resuscitation training methods from inception to April 2025. The analysis will be carried out using the standard network meta-analysis and component network meta-analysis models. Resuscitation skills of staff will be the primary outcome of this analysis. Paired reviewers will independently screen and extract data. A consensus will be sought with the principal investigators to resolve any disagreements that cannot be achieved through regular meetings. Each intervention in each RCT will be decomposed according to its constituent components, such as delivery method, interactivity, teamwork, digitalisation and type of simulator. The analysis will be conducted using the frequentist and bayesian approach in the R environment. RoB V.2.0 and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis will, respectively, be used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As we will use only aggregated secondary data without individual identities, ethical approval is not required. Results of this review will be shared through a peer-reviewed publication and presentation of papers at any relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024532878.
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 | 0.123 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.010 |
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".