Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33276731›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2020

ABCDE cognitive aid tool in patient assessment - development and validation in a multicenter pilot simulation study.

David Peran, Jiri Kodet, Jaroslav Pekara, Lucie Mala, Anatolij Truhlar, Patrik Christian Cmorej, Kasper Glerup Lauridsen, Ferenc Sari, Roman Sykora

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05295485 (Evaluation of the Course Format "NASIM25" - Development of Skills and Professional Safety of Aspiring Prehospital Emergency Physicians by the Course NASIM25), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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.

NCT05295485 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Course Format "NASIM25" - Development of Skills and Professional Safety of Aspiring Prehospital Emergency Physicians by the Course NASIM25

TypeobservationalSponsorJohannes Gutenberg University MainzRan2022 to 2023Enrolled60ConditionsEmergencies, Trauma Injury
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [Initial preclinical assessment on-site].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

David PeranPrague Emergency Medical Services, Prague, Czech Republic. david.peran@seznam.cz.ORCID 0000-0001-5135-4974
Jiri KodetPrague Emergency Medical Services, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jaroslav PekaraPrague Emergency Medical Services, Prague, Czech Republic.
Lucie MalaSecondary Nursing School and Nursing College in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Anatolij TruhlarEmergency Medical Services of the Hradec Kralove Region, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Patrik Christian CmorejEmergency Medical Services of the Usti nad Labem Region, Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic.
Kasper Glerup LauridsenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, USA.
Ferenc SariEmergency Department, Skellefteå District General Hospital, Skellefteå, Sweden.
Roman SykoraDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, 3rd Faculty of Medicine CU and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USCzech Academy of Sciences · CZJan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem · CZSkellefteå Hospital · SEUniversity Hospital Hradec Králové · CZUniversity Hospital in Motol · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe so called ABCDE approach (Airway-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure) is a golden standard of patient assessment. The efficacy of using cognitive aids (CA) in resuscitation and peri-arrest situations remains an important knowledge gap. This work aims to develop an ABCDE CA tool (CAT) and study its potential benefits in patient condition assessment.

methodsThe development of the ABCDE CAT was done by 3 rounds of modified Delphi method performed by the members of the Advanced Life Support Science and Education Committee of the European Resuscitation Council. A pilot multicentre study on 48 paramedic students performing patient assessment in pre-post cohorts (without and with the ABCDA CAT) was made in order to validate and evaluate the impact of the tool in simulated clinical scenarios. The cumulative number and proper order of steps in clinical assessment in simulated scenarios were recorded and the time of the assessment was measured.

resultsThe Delphi method resulted in the ABCDE CAT. The use of ABCDE CAT was associated with more performed assessment steps (804: 868; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.35, p = 0.023) which were significantly more frequently performed in proper order (220: 338; OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.02, p < 0.0001). The use of ABCDE CAT did not prolong the time of patient assessment.

conclusionThe cognitive aid for ABCDE assessment was developed. The use of this cognitive aid for ABCDE helps paramedics to perform more procedures, more frequently in the right order and did not prolong the patient assessment in advanced life support and peri-arrest care.

Indexed as

CognitionAllied Health PersonnelChecklistCurriculumCzech RepublicDelphi TechniqueFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansLife Support CareMalePatient SimulationPilot ProjectsTriageYoung AdultABCDE approachAdvanced life supportPatient assessmentPeri-arrest

Identifiers

PMID33276731
PMCPMC7718686
OpenAlexW3106628581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.