ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020
Blood Loss Estimation in Small Animals and Assessment of a Pictorial Tool to Improve Accuracy in a Global Population of Veterinary Anesthesia Staff.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual estimation of blood loss is the most common form of evaluating intraoperative hemorrhage, and is also the most inaccurate. This study investigated the visual estimation accuracy of a global population of anesthesia staff and students as an initial estimation and also with the assistance of a pictorial guide. A voluntary, two-part, online, anonymous survey was distributed to members of two email databases with an interest in anesthesia, including students, nurses, interns, residents, general practitioners, and specialists. The survey consisted of visual and brief descriptive depictions of blood loss scenarios involving small animals, principally including images of common surgical items and receptacles containing a blood-like substance. Each participant estimated the blood volume (in mL) for each scenario twice, initially (Pre-Guide [PGD]) and then with the aid of a pictorial guide (With-Guide [WGD]). The pictorial guide used similar images labeled with corresponding volumes. Data was analyzed for normality with the Shapiro-Wilks test, corrected to absolute error and compared for statistical significance using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test or the Kruskal-Wallis test as appropriate. The overall raw PGD phase median estimation error was-27 mL (range -99 to 248 mL). The PGD raw median error increased with scenario complexity. There were no differences between role, gender, experience, or country of origin. The overall median raw estimation error for the WGD phase was 13 mL (range -80 ml to 143 mL) (
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.