Observational studyChest2021
Performance of an Electronic Decision Support System as a Therapeutic Intervention During a Multicenter PICU Clinical Trial: Heart and Lung Failure-Pediatric Insulin Titration Trial (HALF-PINT).
Observational study in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01565941 (Heart And Lung Failure - Pediatric INsulin Titration Trial), which is not on this 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.
Heart And Lung Failure - Pediatric INsulin Titration Trial (HALF-PINT)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems for pediatric critical care trials is rare. We sought to describe in detail the use of a CDS tool (Children's Hospital Euglycemia for Kids Spreadsheet [CHECKS]), for the management of hyperglycemia during the 32 multicenter Heart And Lung Failure-Pediatric Insulin Titration trial. RESEARCH QUESTION: In critically ill pediatric patients who were treated with CHECKS, how was user compliance associated with outcomes; and what patient and clinician factors might account for the observed differences in CHECKS compliance? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsDuring an observational retrospective study of compliance with a CDS tool used during a prospective randomized controlled trial, we compared patients with high and low CHECKS compliance. We investigated the association between compliance and blood glucose metrics. We describe CHECKS and use a computer interface analysis framework (the user, function, representation, and task analysis framework) to categorize user interactions. We discuss implications for future randomized controlled trials.
resultsOver a 4.5-year period, 658 of 698 children were treated with the CHECKS protocol for ≥24 hours with a median of 119 recommendations per patient. Compliance per patient was high (median, 99.5%), with only 30 patients having low compliance (<90%). Patients with low compliance were from 16 of 32 sites, younger (P = .02), and less likely to be on inotropic support (P = .04). They were more likely to be have been assigned randomly to the lower blood glucose target (80% vs 48%; P < .001) and to have spent a shorter time (53% vs 75%; P < .001) at the blood glucose target. Overrides (classified by the user, function, representation, and task analysis framework), were largely (89%) due to the user with patient factors contributing 29% of the time.
interpretationThe use of CHECKS for the Heart And Lung Failure-Pediatric Insulin Titration trial resulted in a highly reproducible and explicit method for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill children across varied environments. CDS systems represent an important mechanism for conducting explicit complex pediatric critical care trials. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01565941, registered March 29 2012; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01565941?term=HALF-PINT&draw=2&rank=1.
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.