Standard CPR vs CPR Feedback Devices_RCT

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.