Standard CPR vs CPR Feedback Devices_RCT
Description
Title: Comparison of standard CPR and CPR feedback methods on chest compression effectiveness during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomized simulation-based trial Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effects of feedback devices on the quality of chest compressions performed by medical and paramedic students during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. Specifically, it compared CPR performance during standard CPR, metronome-assisted CPR, and TrueCPR-assisted CPR, while also exploring participants’ perceptions of the multimodal feedback device TrueCPR. Data Description The dataset includes performance and perception data collected from 82 participants (paramedic and medical students) in a single-center, parallel-group, open-label randomized simulation-based trial. Before randomization, participants’ baseline characteristics, cognitive test scores, and standard chest compression-only CPR performance metrics were evaluated and found comparable. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to two groups using web-based block randomization: Group 1: Standard-to-Metronome Group 2: Standard-to-TrueCPR Each participant performed two CPR sessions: standard CPR followed by feedback-assisted CPR. Objective performance metrics (compression rate and depth) were automatically recorded via Ambu Smartman ALS Pro+ (AW301) manikins. Performance output reports from the TrueCPR device were shared with participants only for self-assessment before completing a 10-item post-study feedback survey on attitudes and perceptions. All data were analyzed in SPSS. Descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range, and 95% confidence intervals. Wilcoxon signed-rank test, independent samples t-test and Mann–Whitney U tests were applied for within and between-group comparisons, according to data distribution. Findings Hypothesis 1 (Metronome vs. Standard): Partially supported — metronome use improved consistency in compression rate. Hypothesis 2 (TrueCPR vs. Standard): Supported — TrueCPR produced significantly greater compression depth. Hypothesis 3 (TrueCPR vs. Metronome): Partially supported — TrueCPR showed deeper and more consistent compressions, though slightly slower rates. Overall, both feedback modalities enhanced CPR performance compared to standard CPR with TrueCPR demonstrating additional benefits in performance stability and learning engagement. Value of the Data TrueCPR’s more stable and consistent performance by reducing deviation rates, a narrower data distribution, fewer outliers, and its perceptual contribution to affective and metacognitive learning outcomes, are noteworthy. It can inform medical and paramedic training curricula, supporting the integration of multimodal feedback devices to reinforce clinical skill learning. Researchers can use this dataset to develop or validate CPR education models, explore feedback-based learning mechanisms, or conduct meta-analyses on resuscitation training.
Files
Steps to reproduce
Data Acquisition and Methodology Study Design This dataset was derived from a single-center, simulation-based, randomized controlled trial conducted at Başkent University, Faculty of Medicine. The study followed CONSORT guidelines for randomized trials and received institutional ethics approval. The research compared the effects of standard CPR, metronome-assisted CPR, and TrueCPR-assisted CPR on chest compression (CC) performance and explored participants’ perceptions of a multimodal feedback device. Participants Eighty-two volunteer participants (paramedic and medical students) were recruited based on inclusion criteria of basic CPR knowledge and willingness to participate. Baseline demographic data (age, sex, academic year, and domain), cognitive test scores, and standard CPR-only performance metrics were collected. The participant domains, which were similar in demographic baseline characteristics and baseline readiness including baseline cognitive skills (knowledge test scores) and psychomotor skills (CPR performance metrics) were combined into a single mixed group before randomization. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio into two groups using a web-based block randomization tool (Urbaniak Randomizer). Experimental Protocol Each participant performed two consecutive 2-minute CPR sessions on an Ambu Smartman ALS Pro+ (AW301) manikin, consistent with American Heart Association (AHA 2025) guidelines. Group 1: Standard CPR → CPR with metronome (auditory feedback only) Group 2: Standard CPR → CPR with TrueCPR (auditory + visual+cognitive feedback) Instruments and Data Collection Objective data: Compression depth and compression rate were automatically recorded via the Ambu Smartman ALS Pro+ (AW301) manikin (California, USA) Feedback device: The TrueCPR (Physio-Control, USA) provided real-time audiovisual feedback and generated performance output reports, shared only for participant self-evaluation before the post-study survey. Cognitive data: A standardized 5-question multiple-choice test assessed baseline CPR knowledge. Subjective data: A 10-item post-study feedback survey evaluated participants’ perceptions, perceived usefulness, and educational contribution of TrueCPR. Data Processing and Analysis All data were anonymized before analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v.23). Descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range, and 95% confidence intervals. Group comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, independent samples t-test, and Mann–Whitney U test, according to data distribution. Reproducibility All steps, including participant randomization, training procedures, and data acquisition, were standardized to ensure reproducibility. Replication of this dataset can be achieved by using the same manikin model, feedback devices, and ERC-compliant CPR protocols under controlled simulation conditions.
Institutions
- Baskent Universitesi Tip Fakultesi
- Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Universitesi Acil Tip Anabilim Dali