Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28389913›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018

Real-time evaluation of an image analysis system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss.

Gerhardt Konig, Jonathan H Waters, Mazyar Javidroozi, Bridget Philip, Vicki Ting, Gaurav Abbi, Eric Hsieh, Griffeth Tully, Gregg Adams

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Smartphones and e-tablets in perioperative medicine.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2017
    Review
  12. 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

9 authors.

Gerhardt KonigDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jonathan H WatersDepartments of Anesthesiology and Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Mazyar JavidrooziEnglewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, NJ, USA.
Bridget PhilipDepartment of Anesthesiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
Vicki TingDepartment of Obstetrics, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
Gaurav AbbiDepartment of Orthopedics, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
Eric HsiehGauss Surgical, Inc., Los Altos, CA, USA.
Griffeth TullyGauss Surgical, Inc., Los Altos, CA, USA. griff.tully@gausssurgical.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-0731
Gregg AdamsDepartment of Surgery, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.

Funding

Research Training in Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineT32GM075770 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI YAN XU · 2007 to 2026
$4.8M
National Institutes of Health T32GM075770NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM075770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring blood loss is important for management of surgical patients. This study reviews a device (Triton) that uses computer analysis of a photograph to estimate hemoglobin (Hb) mass present on surgical sponges. The device essentially does what a clinician does when trying to make a visual estimation of blood loss by looking at a sponge, albeit with less subjective variation. The performance of the Triton system is reported upon in during real-time use in surgical procedures. The cumulative Hb losses estimated using the Triton system for 50 enrolled patients were compared with reference Hb measurements during the first quarter, half, three-quarters and full duration of the surgery. Additionally, the estimated blood loss (EBL) was calculated using the Triton measured Hb loss and compared with values obtained from both visual estimation and gravimetric measurements. Hb loss measured by Triton correlated with the reference method across the four measurement intervals. Bias remained low and increased from 0.1 g in the first quarter to 3.7 g at case completion. The limits of agreement remained narrow and increased proportionally from the beginning to the end of the cases, reaching a maximum range of -15.3 to 22.7 g. The median (IQR) difference of EBL derived from the Triton system, gravimetric method and visual estimation versus the reference value were 13 (74), 389 (287), and 4 (230) mL, respectively. Use of the Triton system to measure Hb loss in real-time during surgery is feasible and accurate.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalSurgical SpongesAdultAlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalHemoglobinometryHemoglobinsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMonitoring, IntraoperativeProspective StudiesReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareSurgical Procedures, OperativeHemoglobinsGravimetric methodHemoglobin lossIntraoperative blood lossSponge blood estimation

Identifiers

PMID28389913
PMCPMC5632100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.