ArticleJournal of medical systems2017
Documentation and Treatment of Intraoperative Hypotension: Electronic Anesthesia Records versus Paper Anesthesia Records.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual Anesthesia Record Keeping at a Tertiary Care Center: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we examined anesthetic records before and after the implementation of an electronic anesthetic record documentation (AIMS) in a single surgical population. The purpose of this study was to identify any inconsistencies in anesthetic care based on handwritten documentation (paper) or AIMS. We hypothesized that the type of anesthetic record (paper or AIMS) would lead to differences in the documentation and management of hypotension. Consecutive patients who underwent esophageal surgery between 2009 and 2014 by a single surgeon were eligible for the study. Patients were grouped in to 'paper' or 'AIMS' based on the type of anesthetic record identified in the chart. Pertinent patient identifiers were removed and data collated after collection. Predetermined preoperative and intraoperative data variables were reviewed. Consecutive esophageal surgery patients (N = 189) between 2009 and 2014 were evaluated. 92 patients had an anesthetic record documented on paper and 97 using AIMS. The median number of unique blood pressure recordings was lower in the AIMS group (median (Q1,Q3) AIMS 30.0 (24.0, 39.0) vs. Paper 35.0 (28.5, 43.5), p < 0.01). However, the median number of hypotensive events (HTEs) was higher in the AIMS group (median (Q1,Q3) 8.0 (4.0, 18.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0, 10.5), p < 0.001), and the percentage of HTEs per blood pressure recording was higher in the AIMS group (30.4 ((Q1, Q3) (9.5, 60.9)% vs. 12.5 (2.4, 27.5)%), p < 0.01). Multivariable regression analysis identified independent predictors of HTEs. The incidence of HTEs was found to increase with AIMS (IRR = 1.88, p < 0.01). Preoperative systolic blood pressure, increased blood loss, and phenylephrine. A phenylephrine infusion was negatively associated with hypotensive events (IRR = 0.99, p = 0.03). We noted an increased incidence of HTEs associated with the institution of an AIMS. Despite this increase, no change in medical therapy for hypotension was seen. AIMS did not appear to have an effect on the management of intraoperative hypotension in this patient population.
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.