ArticleAcute medicine & surgery2019
A collaborative educational intervention on procedural sedation and analgesia across the Pacific.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department in Japan: interim analysis of multicenter prospective observational study.Journal of anesthesia · 2019Observational
- A mini-review of procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.Acute medicine & surgeryReview
- Incidence of adverse events for procedural sedation and analgesia for cardioversion using thiopental in elderly patients: a multicenter prospective observational study.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
- Challenges for interprofessional simulation-based sedation training courses: Mini review.Acute medicine & surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWorldwide, health-care providers carry out procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department. However, training opportunities are limited in many Asian countries, including Japan. We formed an educational group consisting of board-certified emergency physicians in the USA and Japanese physicians and developed a PSA training module. The aims of our study were to demonstrate the effectiveness of training and to describe PSA practice in Japan.
methodsWe undertook a pretest of PSA knowledge questions and a retest immediately after the training intervention. We also carried out a survey and asked about participants' PSA practice. The training module consisted of four didactic hours and three simulation and skills laboratory hours. Results of all pre- and post-intervention knowledge questions were analyzed with McNemar's test, and overall scores were analyzed with a paired
resultsOne hundred and forty-four health-care providers including 123 physicians, 16 nurses, two pharmacists, and three medical students participated in the training. A total of 119 (83%) completed both the pre- and post-intervention knowledge questions. Before the training, participants scored an average 66% (63%-69%) on the written knowledge test. After the intervention, participants showed significant improvement on the knowledge test (improvement 17%; 14%-20%). Among participants who answered the practice survey, 121 (88%) have undertaken PSA. Only 14 (12%) participants always or often use a continuous capnography for PSA. Only 32 (26.4%) participants undertook pre-PSA systematic evaluation.
conclusionOur educational intervention successfully increased participants' knowledge. Only the minority of health-care providers use capnography routinely for PSA, and pre-PSA evaluation is not commonly carried out.
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.