PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the effectiveness of Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) compared to traditional instruction or other forms of learning on resuscitation training outcomes and on clinical and/or patient-related outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: As part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation it was conducted this review and searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane from inception to Feb 12th, 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
UNASSIGNED: 4420 abstracts were retrieved by the initial search and 10 additional studies were identified through other resources. Sixty-five studies were selected for eligibility and nine simulated studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was performed on three outcomes: time to chest compressions, time to defibrillation and time to first epinephrine given, which showed that RCDP had significantly shorter time to defibrillation and time to administration of epinephrine than controls. The overall certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes due to risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.
UNASSIGNED: It may be reasonable to include RCDP as an instructional design feature of basic and advanced life support training. However, substantial variations of delivering RCDP exist and there is no uniform use of RCDP. Further research is necessary on medium/long-term effects of RCDP training, and on the effects on different target groups of training.
UNASSIGNED: As part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation it was conducted this review and searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane from inception to Feb 12th, 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
UNASSIGNED: 4420 abstracts were retrieved by the initial search and 10 additional studies were identified through other resources. Sixty-five studies were selected for eligibility and nine simulated studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was performed on three outcomes: time to chest compressions, time to defibrillation and time to first epinephrine given, which showed that RCDP had significantly shorter time to defibrillation and time to administration of epinephrine than controls. The overall certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes due to risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.
UNASSIGNED: It may be reasonable to include RCDP as an instructional design feature of basic and advanced life support training. However, substantial variations of delivering RCDP exist and there is no uniform use of RCDP. Further research is necessary on medium/long-term effects of RCDP training, and on the effects on different target groups of training.
摘要：
■与传统指导或其他形式的学习相比，评估快速周期故意练习（RCDP）在复苏培训结果以及临床和/或患者相关结果方面的有效性。
■作为国际复苏联络委员会持续证据评估过程的一部分，进行了这次审查，并搜索了Medline，Embase和Cochrane从成立到2月12日，2024.使用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险评估工具和经修订的Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具进行偏倚风险评估。等级方法用于评估每个结果的证据的总体确定性。
■通过初始搜索检索了4420份摘要，并通过其他资源确定了10项其他研究。选择了65项研究的资格，其中9项模拟研究符合纳入标准。对三个结果进行了荟萃分析：胸部按压时间，除颤时间和第一次给予肾上腺素的时间，这表明RCDP的除颤时间和肾上腺素给药时间明显短于对照组。由于偏见的风险，所有结果的证据总体确定性都很低，不一致,间接性,和不精确。
■将RCDP作为基本和高级生命支持培训的教学设计功能包括在内可能是合理的。然而,提供RCDP存在很大差异，并且没有统一使用RCDP。需要进一步研究RCDP培训的中长期影响，以及对不同目标群体的训练效果。
■作为国际复苏联络委员会持续证据评估过程的一部分，进行了这次审查，并搜索了Medline，Embase和Cochrane从成立到2月12日，2024.使用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险评估工具和经修订的Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具进行偏倚风险评估。等级方法用于评估每个结果的证据的总体确定性。
■通过初始搜索检索了4420份摘要，并通过其他资源确定了10项其他研究。选择了65项研究的资格，其中9项模拟研究符合纳入标准。对三个结果进行了荟萃分析：胸部按压时间，除颤时间和第一次给予肾上腺素的时间，这表明RCDP的除颤时间和肾上腺素给药时间明显短于对照组。由于偏见的风险，所有结果的证据总体确定性都很低，不一致,间接性,和不精确。
■将RCDP作为基本和高级生命支持培训的教学设计功能包括在内可能是合理的。然而,提供RCDP存在很大差异，并且没有统一使用RCDP。需要进一步研究RCDP培训的中长期影响，以及对不同目标群体的训练效果。
