ArticleBMC research notes2014
Evaluating the test re-test reliability and inter-subject variability of Health Care Provider manual fluid resuscitation performance.
Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Aseptic Technique During the Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Comparison of 2 Rapid Fluid Delivery Methods.Journal of infusion nursing : the official publication of the Infusion Nurses SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth Care Providers (HCPs) report that manual techniques of intravascular fluid resuscitation are commonly used during pediatric shock management. The optimal pediatric fluid resuscitation technique is currently unknown. We sought to determine HCP test-retest reliability (repeatability) and inter-subject variability of fluid resuscitation performance outcomes to inform the design of future studies.
methodsFifteen consenting HCPs from McMaster Children's Hospital, in Hamilton, Canada participated in this single-arm interventional trial. Participants were oriented to a non-clinical model representing a 15 kg toddler, which incorporated a 22-gauge IV catheter. Following a standardization procedure, participants administered 600 mL (40 mL/kg) of saline to the simulated child under emergency conditions using prefilled 60-mL syringes. Each participant completed 5 testing trials. All testing was video recorded, with fluid administration time outcome data (in seconds) extracted from trial videos by two blinded outcome assessors. Data describing catheter dislodgement events, volume of saline effectively delivered, and participant demographics were also collected. The primary outcome of fluid administration time test-retest reliability was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and intra-class correlation (ICC), with good reliability defined as ICC > 0.70.
resultsDifferences in HCP fluid administration times are attributable to inter-subject variability rather than intra-subject variability based on one-way ANOVA analysis, F (14,60) = 43.125; p < 0.001. Test-retest reliability of subjects was excellent with ICC = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99); p < 0.001.
conclusionsFindings demonstrate excellent test-retest reliability of HCP fluid resuscitation performance in a setting involving a non-clinical model. Investigators can justify a single evaluation of HCP performance in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.