Aim: CPR training for schoolchildren to increase bystander CPR-rates is widely applied. HCPs are regarded as the instructor gold standard, but using non-HCP instructors (e.g., peer-tutors, schoolteachers, medical students) challenges that. This systematic review assesses whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for children led by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students results in different learning outcomes to training by health-care professionals (HCPs). Methods: We searched studies that compared CPR training for schoolchildren (population) delivered by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students (intervention), with training led by HCPs (comparison), assessing student knowledge, skills, willingness and/or confidence to perform CPR (outcome). We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (study design). Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Eric were searched from inception until December 23rd, 2023 (timeframe). Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full text screening, bias assessment, and grading of certainty of evidence. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and registered the review with PROSPERO. Results: Of 9'092 studies identified, 14 were included. Comparison of intervention groups to HCP-led training showed similar overall results (knowledge, skills, self-confidence). Superior results for HCP training were only reported for 'ventilation volume', while schoolteachers and medical students achieved superior knowledge transfer. A meta-analysis was possible for 'compression depth' between peer-tutors and HCPs showing no significant differences. Certainty of evidence was 'low' to 'very low'. Conclusion: This systematic review of CPR training for school children revealed that peer-tutors, schoolteachers and medical students achieve similar educational outcomes compared to those of HCPs. Non-HCPs training schoolchildren is an appropriate cost-efficient alternative and easy to implement in school curricula.

BackgroundStudies of the associations between soft drinks and the risk of cancer showed inconsistent results. No previous published systematic reviews and meta-analysis has investigated a dose-response association between exposure dose and cancer risk or assessed the certainty of currently available evidence. Therefore, we aim to demonstrate the associations and assessed the certainty of the evidence to show our confidence in the associations.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to Jun 2022, to include relevant prospective cohort studies. We used a restricted cubic spline model to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis and calculated the absolute effect estimates to present the results. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsForty-two articles including on 37 cohorts enrolled 4,518,547 participants were included. With low certainty evidence, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 17% greater risk of breast cancer, a 10% greater risk of colorectal cancer, a 30% greater risk of biliary tract cancer, and a 10% greater risk of prostate cancer; increased consumption of artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs)re per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 16% greater risk of leukemia; increased consumption of 100% fruit juice per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 31% greater risk of overall cancer, 22% greater risk of melanoma, 2% greater risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and 29% greater risk of thyroid cancer. The associations with other specific cancer were no significant. We found linear dose-response associations between consumption of SSBs and the risk of breast and kidney cancer, and between consumption of ASBs and 100% fruit juices and the risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsAn increment in consumption of SSBs of 250 mL/day was positively associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, and biliary tract cancer. Fruit juices consumption was also positively associated with the risk of overall cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. The magnitude of absolute effects, however, was small and mainly based on low or very low certainty of evidence. The association of ASBs consumption with specific cancer risk was uncertain.