Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24779119›Full record

ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2014

Predicting adult perfusion practice trends and the adoption of evidence-based practice.

Margaret A Relle, Jennifer M Hutchinson, Adam Mattison, Alicia Sievert, Anthony G Shackelford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Adult Clinical Perfusion Practice Survey: 2020 results.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Margaret A Relle
Jennifer M Hutchinson
Adam Mattison
Alicia Sievert
Anthony G Shackelford

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an effort to provide optimal patient care, perfusionists should rely on information provided by current research. Present statistics, however, document a substantial underuse of evidence-based clinical practice and therapies not only in perfusion, but throughout the entire medical field. This investigation applied a statistical method--binomial proportion analysis--to aid in uncovering the trends in perfusion practice from 2004 to 2011. Through the analysis of national adult perfusion practice surveys, the feasibility of using binomial proportion statistical analysis is assessed in its ability to track adult perfusion practice proportional differentials over time and evaluate the adoption and attitudes toward the compliance of evidence-based practice within the field of perfusion. Surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 on adult perfusion practice in the United States--although not published--are compared with data obtained by a similar survey distributed in 2011 through an international perfusion network system and perfusion mailing system, Perflist and Perfmail. The increase of perfusionists who practice retrograde and antegrade autologous priming (R/A AP) seen from 2004 to 2006 (35-50%) was statistically significant (Z(cal) = -2.30, p < .05) and from 2006 to 2011 (Z(calc) = -5.23; p < .05). Although the increase in biocompatible circuit (BC) use by perfusionists from 2004-2006 (53-64%) was not statistically significant (Z(calc) = -1.69, p < .05), the use of BCs did continue to increase (86%) significantly from 2006 to 2011 (Z(calc) = -9.15, p < .05). Other trends were observed; however, statistical significance was variable. This investigation demonstrates that binomial proportion statistical analysis is an effective method of evaluating perfusion practice trends and adoptions based on increasing or decreasing perfusion population proportion compliance over time.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAdultCardiopulmonary BypassFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMalePractice Patterns, Physicians'United States

Identifiers

PMID24779119
PMCPMC4557511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.