Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Three categories of eligible studies were defined.
1. Prospective studies of the lay person's ability to perform CPR after basic training compared with different time points after training (the studies had to examine retention at least one month after training), or of standard CPR training versus other means, or different training methods or regimens.
2. Prospective studies (data analysis could be retrospective) comparing bystander CPR with no bystander CPR.
3. Community-based studies of bystander CPR before and after the initiation of CPR training, or comparing training programmes with no training programmes.
Specific interventions included in the review
The review question was addressed in three parts for which the eligible interventions were CPR training for lay people, bystander CPR and community CPR education programmes.
Participants included in the review
Lay people and victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received CPR from a bystander (according to the question being addressed) were eligible for inclusion.
Outcomes assessed in the review
The inclusion criteria were measures of the ability of lay people to perform effective CPR (retention of CPR skills), survival rates among victims, and the proportion of victims who received bystander CPR relative to the proportion of the population trained in CPR.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
One reviewer selected the studies for inclusion.