ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2014
An Evaluation Trial of The National Perfusion Registry.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The International Consortium for Evidence-Based Perfusion (ICEBP) is a collaborative group whose mission is to improve, continuously, the delivery of care and outcomes for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. To achieve this end, the ICEBP supports the development of perfusion registries to evaluate clinical practices and has established evidence-based guidelines for perfusion. The Japanese Society of Extra-Corporeal Technology in Medicine (JaSECT) developed a perfusion registry to examine variation in perfusion practice in Japan. A pilot study was designed to determine the rate and accuracy of data extraction from patients' medical records and perfusion practice records and the subsequent entry of data into the registry form. We designed an input matching test using medical records and perfusion records from a sample of patients. Five institutions participated in data. extraction and entry from 10 randomly selected case records. Perfusionists entered data in the registry form in accordance with the instruction manual prepared by the JaSECT guideline committee. The time taken to input every case in the registry was measured. An interview-based survey was carried out across institutions after the completion of the pilot. The time required for data entry stabilized after approximately five cases to a rate that was 40% of the first case entry time. Data entered into the registry by perfusionists for multiple-choice items were accurate 65% of the time and accurate 25% of the time for numerical data. The interview-based survey identified a total of 38 opportunities for improvement in the input form and 58 recommended changes for the instruction manual. The accuracy of data may be improved by developing a method allowing the objective detection of deficient data when present in the perfusion case record by developing automatic data acquisition from the automatic perfusion recording system currently in use, and by changing as many numerical value input items as possible to multiple-choice items.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26357793PMC4566836W2413583731What 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.