Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29279635›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2017

Reliability and Validity of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury as a Charting Tool in the Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Alexander Kogan, Kelly M Pennington, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula, Mikhail Dziadzko, Courtney E Bennett, Jeffrey B Jensen, Ognjen Gajic, John C O'Horo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Alexander KoganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
Kelly M PenningtonResearch Faculty, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Laboratory, MN, USA.
Saraschandra VallabhajosyulaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
Mikhail DziadzkoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
Courtney E BennettDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
Jeffrey B JensenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
Ognjen GajicDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.
John C O'HoroDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResuscitation of critically ill patients is complex and potentially prone to diagnostic errors and therapeutic harm. The Checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injury (CERTAIN) is an electronic tool that aims to provide decision-support, charting, and prompting for standardization. This study sought to evaluate the validity and reliability of CERTAIN in a real-time Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a prospective pilot study in the medical ICU of a tertiary care medical center. A total of thirty patient encounters over 2 months period were charted independently by two CERTAIN investigators. The inter-observer recordings and comparison to the electronic medical records (EMR) were used to evaluate reliability and validity, respectively. The primary outcome was reliability and validity measured using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Secondary outcomes included time to completion, user satisfaction, and learning curve.

resultsA total of 30 patients with a median age of 59 (42-78) years and median acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III score of 38 (23-50) were included in this study. Inter-observer agreement was very good (κ = 0.79) in this study and agreement between CERTAIN and the EMR was good (κ = 0.5). CERTAIN charting was completed in real-time that was 121 (92-150) min before completion of EMR charting. The subjective learning curve was 3.5 patients without differences in providers with different levels of training.

conclusionsCERTAIN provides a reliable and valid method to evaluate resuscitation events in real time. CERTAIN provided the ability to complete data in real-time.

Indexed as

Checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injurychecklistscritical carereliabilityresuscitation

Identifiers

PMID29279635
PMCPMC5699002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.