PICOT: In community dwellings, how effective is hands-only CPR versus hands plus breathing CPR at preventing mortality in adults?

I will send you two articles related to CRP the (PICOT: In community dwellings, how effective is hands-only CPR versus hands plus breathing CPR at preventing mortality in adults?)

and I need you to write these sections for each article:

_Introduction and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.

_Purpose, Subjects, Design, and Findings.

_Critique and Level of Evidence.

Also, I need few paragraphs describe the types of research studies that are still needed; be specific (gaps in literature)

Bobrow, B., Spaite, D., Berg, R., Stolz, U., Sanders, A., Kern, K., . . . Ewy, G. (2010). Chest

compression-only CPR by lay rescuers and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association., 304(13), 1447-1454.

Yang, Li J; Huang, Yu; He, Qing; Liu, Guan J. (2017). Continuous chest compression versus

interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial

out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews., 2017, Vol.3,

p. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010134.pub2. Retrieved October 3, 2018

This is an example that my classmate did:

Review of the Research Literature: Table of Evidence

Study Title #1: Bystander-Initiated Chest Compression-Only CPR is Better Than Standard CPR in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Cabrini et al., 2010).

Introduction and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests have had a low survival rate to hospital discharge. Different databases were searched to analyze publications regarding non-traumatic cardiac arrest. Inclusion ofrelevant studies met the following criteria: random allocation to treatment and compression only versus standard CPR. Exclusion criteria was the following: non-parallel design, duplicate publications, non-human experimental studies, and studies with no outcome data. Two independent and experienced reviewers appraised the studies for quality and the internal validity of the three included trials were appraised according to The Cochrane Collaboration methods (Cabrini et al., 2010).

Purpose, Subjects, Design, and Findings.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the survival rate at hospital discharge of adults suffering a non-traumatic cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint of this review was overall survival.Three randomized controlled trials met the search criteria, which yielded 3,737 patients who received either compression only (n=1852) or standard CPR (n=1895) for out-of-hospital resuscitation. The patients were evenly distributed among the two groups.Binary outcomes were analyzed in order to compute risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and statistical significance was set at a two-tailed 0.05 level.The results from this study strongly supported the superiority of bystander compression-only CPR and recommended this as the preferred CPR technique by an untrained bystander. Reasons for included a better willingness of bystanders to start CPR, the lower quality of mouth-to-mouth ventilation, and a detrimental effect of too long chest compression interruptions (Cabrini et al., 2010).

Critique and Level of Evidence. All three studies evaluated were of high quality as by the details on the methods used for the adequate allocation, low risk of selection, performance, and detection bias. The Level of Evidence was considered Level I which defines as “evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial” (“Levels of Evidence,” 2018). All studies were performed in non-traumatic out-of-hospital patients and the most updated international basic life support guidelines were strictly followed. After a state-wide public campaign came into effect aimed to increase compression-only CPR, the incidence of bystander-initiated CPR increased every year.Overall survival rate and neurological outcomes monitored for five years also increased over time, with superiority seen in the compression-only CPR group (Cabrini et al., 2010).