Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812925›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2021

The Influence of Audible Alarm Loudness and Type on Clinical Multitasking.

Alexandra L Bruder, Clayton D Rothwell, Laura I Fuhr, Matthew S Shotwell, Judy Reed Edworthy, Joseph J Schlesinger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2021. 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

6 authors.

Alexandra L BruderDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 21st Avenue South, Medical Arts Building, Suite 422, Nashville, TN, 37212, USA. alexandra.l.bruder@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7329-8328
Clayton D RothwellDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, 460 Medical Center Drive, Suite 526, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7369-3392
Laura I FuhrSchool of Medicine, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee Street, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1192-9291
Matthew S ShotwellDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37212, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1480-0637
Judy Reed EdworthySchool of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2884-5780
Joseph J SchlesingerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 21st Avenue South, Medical Arts Building, Suite 422, Nashville, TN, 37212, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-2647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In high-consequence industries such as health care, auditory alarms are an important aspect of an informatics system that monitors patients and alerts providers attending to multiple concurrent tasks. Alarms levels are unnecessarily high and alarm signals are uninformative. In a laboratory-based task setting, we studied 25 anesthesiology residents' responses to auditory alarms in a multitasking paradigm comprised of three tasks: patient monitoring, speech perception/intelligibility, and visual vigilance. These tasks were in the presence of background noise plus/minus music, which served as an attention-diverting stimulus. Alarms signified clinical decompensation and were either conventional alarms or a novel informative auditory icon alarm. Both alarms were presented at four different levels. Task performance (accuracy and response times) were analyzed using logistic and linear mixed-effects regression. Salient findings were 1), the icon alarm had similar performance to the conventional alarm at a +2 dB signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) (accuracy: OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.88, 1.67), response time: 0.04 s at 2 dB (95% CI: -0.16, 0.24), which is a much lower level than current clinical environments; 2) the icon alarm was associated with 27% greater odds (95% CI: 18%, 37%) of correctly addressing the vigilance task, regardless of alarm SNR, suggesting crossmodal/multisensory multitasking benefits; and 3) compared to the conventional alarm, the icon alarm was associated with an absolute improvement in speech perception of 4% in the presence of an attention-diverting auditory stimulus (p = 0.031). These findings suggest that auditory icons can provide multitasking benefits in cognitively demanding clinical environments.

Indexed as

Clinical AlarmsHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicNoiseReaction TimeTask Performance and AnalysisAlarm signalsAuditory displaysClinical alarmsCritical careMultisensory integration

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.