Summary of findings 4. Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme with boosters compared with SFNRT for knowledge and skills retention.
| Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme with boosters compared with SFNRT for knowledge and skills retention | ||||||
|
Patient or population: healthcare professionals involved in attending deliveries Settings: educational setting at University of Toronto Intervention: SFNRT with boosters Comparison: SFNRT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| SFNRT | SFNRT with boosters | |||||
| Knowledge retention ‐ hands on booster on NRP test scores | The mean score in the control group was 187 | The mean score in the intervention group was 194 | MD 7 (‐2.87 to 16.87) |
31 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
| Knowledge retention ‐ video booster on NRP test scores | The mean score in the control group was 187 | The mean score in the intervention group was 191 | MD 4 (‐9.72 to 17.72) |
30 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
| Knowledge retention ‐ any booster on NRP scores | The mean score in the control group was 187 | The mean score in the intervention group was 192.5 | MD 5.50 (‐4.37 to 15.37) | 44 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
|
Skills retention ‐ hands on booster on performance scores |
The mean score in the control group was 76 | The mean score in the intervention group was 81 | MD 5 (‐3.18 to 13.18) | 31 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
| Skills retention ‐ video booster on performance scores | The mean score in the control group was 76 | The mean score in the intervention group was 82 | MD 6 (‐1.16 to 13.16) | 30 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
| Skills retention ‐ any booster on performance scores | The mean score in the control group was 76 | The mean score in the intervention group was 81.48 | MD 5.48 (‐1.07 to 12.03) | 44 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of very serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 1 study with small sample size) and serious risk of bias (unclear concealment of allocation, absence of blinding of participants and poor follow‐up) |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; NRP: Neonatal Resuscitation Program; SFNRT: standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||