Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28444085›Full record

Observational studyEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2017

Blood pressure documentation in the emergency department.

Ana Carolina Queiroz Godoy Daniel, Juliana Pereira Machado, Eugenia Velludo Veiga

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Ana Carolina Queiroz Godoy DanielHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Juliana Pereira MachadoCentro Universitário Barão de Mauá, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Eugenia Velludo VeigaEscola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the frequency of blood pressure documentation performed by nursing professionals in an emergency department. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, observational, descriptive, and analytical study, which included medical records of adult patients admitted to the observation ward of an emergency department, between March and May 2014. Data were obtained through a collection instrument divided into three parts: patient identification, triage data, and blood pressure documentation. For statistical analysis, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used, with a significance level of α<0.05. Results: One hundred fifty-seven records and 430 blood pressure measurements were analyzed with an average of three measurements per patient. Of these measures, 46.5% were abnormal. The mean time from admission to documentation of the first blood pressure measurement was 2.5 minutes, with 42 minutes between subsequent measures. There is no correlation between the systolic blood pressure values and the mean time interval between blood pressure documentations: 0.173 (p=0.031). Conclusion: The present study found no correlation between frequency of blood pressure documentation and blood pressure values. The frequency of blood pressure documentation increased according to the severity of the patient and decreased during the length of stay in the emergency department.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Pressure DeterminationBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing RecordsPatient AdmissionReference ValuesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28444085
PMCPMC5433303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.