The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of real-time feedback and debriefing by video recording on basic life support skill in nursing students.
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation skill have a direct impact on its success rate. Choosing the right method to acquire this skill can lead to effective performance. This investigation was conducted to compare the effect of Real-time feedback and debriefing by video recording on basic life support skill in nursing students. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was performed on 67 first year nursing students. First, a theoretical basic life support (BLS) training session was held for the all participants, at the end of session the pre-test was taken. Students were randomly assigned to two groups. A 4-hour practical BLS training session was conducted in the real - time feedback group as well as the debriefing by video recording group, and at the end of the training, a post-test was taken from each group. Each group received a post-test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25 software. Results: Results showed a significant difference between mean (SD) of debriefing by video recording group in pre-test and post-test ( p < 0.001) and in the real-time feedback group there was a significant difference between mean (SD) in pre-test and post-test ( p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, there was no significant difference between the mean score of basic life support skill in real-time feedback and debriefing by video recording. Conclusions: Both real-time feedback and debriefing by video recording were effective on basic life support skill.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Ghaderi et al. compared real-time feedback with post-hoc video debriefing in BLS training and found that, although both modalities were effective, real-time feedback conferred a distinct advantage for on-the-spot correction of technique (29).”
From Application effect of Miller’s pyramid teaching method based on HeartCode BLS in basic life support training for nursing students (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basic life support training for undergraduate nursing students: an integrative review.
Dick-Smith, F., Power, T., Martinez-Maldonado, R., & Elliott, D. (2021) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102957 · Cited by 40
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. circulation. 2016;133(4):e38–e360.
- Chegeni Z, Aliyari S, Pishgooie SAH. The effect of basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, by the presentation method, on the performance of soldiers in military units. Military Caring Sciences Journal. 2018;4(4):227–35. · DOI
- Merchant RM, Topjian AA, Panchal AR, Cheng A, Aziz K, Berg KM, et al. Part 1: executive summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020;142(16_Suppl_2, S337):–S57. · DOI
- Perkins GD, Graesner JT, Semeraro F, Olasveengen T, Soar J, Lott C, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines 2021: executive summary. Resuscitation. 2021;161:1–60. · DOI · Paper page
- Movahedi A, Kavosi A, Moieni Ghamchini V, Behnam Voshani H, Reihani H, Mohammadi G, et al. Survey of the relationship between end tidal CO2 and return of spontaneous circulation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Iran J Nurs Res. 2016;11(5):32–40. · DOI
- Moon H, Hyun HS. Nursing students’ knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy in blended learning of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC medical education. 2019;19(1):1–8. · DOI
- Chamanzari H, Ahmadi Maibody K, Hr B, Malek Zade J, Abdolahi H, Robati P, et al. Effect of capnography feedback during CPR on promotion psychomotor skills of rescuers. Internal Medicine Today. 2019;25(1):1–7.
- Gruber J, Stumpf D, Zapletal B, Neuhold S, Fischer H. Real-time feedback systems in CPR. Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care. 2012;2(6):287–94. · DOI
- Tanaka S, Tsukigase K, Hara T, Sagisaka R, Myklebust H, Birkenes TS, et al. Effect of real-time visual feedback device ‘quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (QCPR) Classroom’with a metronome sound on layperson CPR training in Japan: a cluster randomized control trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e026140. · DOI
- Kong SYJ, Song KJ, Shin SD, Ro YS, Myklebust H, Birkenes TS, et al. Effect of real-time feedback during cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on quality of performances: a prospective cluster-randomized trial. Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020;27(4):187–96. · DOI
- Couper K, Perkins GD. CURRENT OPINION debriefing after resuscitation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013;19:188–94. · DOI
- Ostovar S, Allahbakhshian A, Gholizadeh L, Dizaji SL, Sarbakhsh P, Ghahramanian A. Comparison of the effects of debriefing methods on psychomotor skills, self-confidence, and satisfaction in novice nursing students: a quasi-experimental study. Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research. 2018;9(3):107–12. · DOI
- Vadeboncoeur T, Bobrow BJ, Clark L, Kern KB, Sanders AB, Berg RA, et al. The save hearts in Arizona registry and education (SHARE) program: who is performing CPR and where are they doing it? Resuscitation. 2007;75(1):68–75. · DOI
- Aghajani M, Nasrabadi T, Ebrahimi Abyaneh E. The effect of BLS training through video feedback on the performance of non-professional saviors . J Anesth Pain 2018;8(4):84–92. http://jap.iums.ac.ir/article-1-5359-en.html.
- Brown LL, Lin Y, Tofil NM, Overly F, Duff JP, Bhanji F, et al. Impact of a CPR feedback device on healthcare provider workload during simulated cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2018;130:111–7. · DOI
- Zapletal B, Greif R, Stumpf D, Nierscher FJ, Frantal S, Haugk M, et al. Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study. Resuscitation. 2014;85(4):560–6. · DOI
- Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Wik L, Fellows B, Svensson L, Sørebø H, et al. Quality of out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with real time automated feedback: a prospective interventional study. Resuscitation. 2006;71(3):283–92. · DOI
- Baldi E, Cornara S, Contri E, Epis F, Fina D, Zelaschi B, et al. Real-time visual feedback during training improves laypersons’ CPR quality: a randomized controlled manikin study. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017;19(6):480–7. · DOI
- Lakomek F, Lukas RP, Brinkrolf P, Mennewisch A, Steinsiek N, Gutendorf P, et al. Real-time feedback improves chest compression quality in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229431. · DOI
- Peyrovi H, Mohsenabadi M, Haghani H, Alipasandi K. Effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation education based on team debriefing on knowledge and practice of staff nurses: a one-group before-after study. The Journal of Medical Research. 2020;6(4):145–9. · DOI
- Koh JH, Hur HK. Effects of simulation-based training for basic life support utilizing video-assisted debriefing on non-technical and technical skills of nursing students. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(2):169–79. · DOI
- Schober P, Kistemaker KR, Sijani F, Schwarte LA, van Groeningen D, Krage R. Effects of post-scenario debriefing versus stop-and-go debriefing in medical simulation training on skill acquisition and learning experience: a randomized controlled trial. BMC medical education. 2019;19(1):1–7. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, W., Cheng, F., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1863479
Metadata
- Authors
- Ghaderi, M. S., Malekzadeh, J., Mazloum, S., & Pourghaznein, T.
- Affiliations
- Torbat Jam Faculty of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Pourghaznein, Tayebe
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2023-01-25
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 62-62
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9878936
- OpenAlex
- W4318038011
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 5.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- basic life support, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, real-time feedback, nursing students, simulation-based training, skill acquisition
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Feedback, Humans, Students, Nursing, Video Recording, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
