PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the effectiveness of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies on clinical and educational outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles\' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles\' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
摘要：
■评估生命支持培训的有效性，特别强调团队在临床和教育成果方面的能力。
■这项系统评价是前瞻性注册的（PROSPEROCRD42023473154），并遵循PICOST（人口，干预，比较,结果,研究设计，时间帧)格式。包括所有随机对照试验和非随机研究，评估接受生命支持培训的学习者，并特别强调在任何情况下（实际和模拟复苏）的团队能力。未发表的研究被排除在外。Medline,从开始到2023年8月（2024年1月18日更新），搜索了Embase和Cochrane数据库以及试验注册中心。两名研究人员进行了标题和摘要筛选，全文筛选,数据提取,偏倚风险评估(使用RoB2和ROBINS-I)和证据确定性评估(使用等级)。PRISMA报告清单用于报告结果。没有获得资金来进行这项系统审查。
■文献检索出5470份手稿。删除2073个副本后，审阅其余文章的标题和摘要，得出31篇文章全文审阅。其中,最终纳入了17项研究。这些研究涉及以下培训水平：基本生命支持，成人高级生命支持，儿科和新生儿复苏。大多数研究(n=16)以模拟的方式评估结果，只有一项实际复苏的研究。所有培训环境中的研究都显示了生命支持培训的中立性和/或益处，特别强调团队能力。团队能力培训提高了CPR技能表现和CPR质量。改进的具体团队能力包括领导力，通信,决策和任务管理。没有观察到不期望的效果。由于显著的方法学异质性，无法进行Meta分析。由于缺乏数据，无法进行亚组分析。偏见评估的风险从一些问题到严重不等。由于偏倚和不精确的风险，证据的总体确定性被评为低到非常低。
■这项系统评价确定了非常低和低确定性的证据，几乎完全来自模拟研究。这些研究及其发现是异质的，但表明教学团队能力可以提高复苏技能表现和CPR质量。以及提高团队能力，特别是领导,通信,决策,和任务管理。需要进一步的研究，以了解团队能力培训干预措施的最佳配置，并了解对临床结果和成本效益的影响。
■这项系统评价是前瞻性注册的（PROSPEROCRD42023473154），并遵循PICOST（人口，干预，比较,结果,研究设计，时间帧)格式。包括所有随机对照试验和非随机研究，评估接受生命支持培训的学习者，并特别强调在任何情况下（实际和模拟复苏）的团队能力。未发表的研究被排除在外。Medline,从开始到2023年8月（2024年1月18日更新），搜索了Embase和Cochrane数据库以及试验注册中心。两名研究人员进行了标题和摘要筛选，全文筛选,数据提取,偏倚风险评估(使用RoB2和ROBINS-I)和证据确定性评估(使用等级)。PRISMA报告清单用于报告结果。没有获得资金来进行这项系统审查。
■文献检索出5470份手稿。删除2073个副本后，审阅其余文章的标题和摘要，得出31篇文章全文审阅。其中,最终纳入了17项研究。这些研究涉及以下培训水平：基本生命支持，成人高级生命支持，儿科和新生儿复苏。大多数研究(n=16)以模拟的方式评估结果，只有一项实际复苏的研究。所有培训环境中的研究都显示了生命支持培训的中立性和/或益处，特别强调团队能力。团队能力培训提高了CPR技能表现和CPR质量。改进的具体团队能力包括领导力，通信,决策和任务管理。没有观察到不期望的效果。由于显著的方法学异质性，无法进行Meta分析。由于缺乏数据，无法进行亚组分析。偏见评估的风险从一些问题到严重不等。由于偏倚和不精确的风险，证据的总体确定性被评为低到非常低。
■这项系统评价确定了非常低和低确定性的证据，几乎完全来自模拟研究。这些研究及其发现是异质的，但表明教学团队能力可以提高复苏技能表现和CPR质量。以及提高团队能力，特别是领导,通信,决策,和任务管理。需要进一步的研究，以了解团队能力培训干预措施的最佳配置，并了解对临床结果和成本效益的影响。
