ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2021
The Efficacy and Use of a Pocket Card Algorithm in Status Epilepticus Treatment.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Cervical Spine Injury Imaging Decision-Making in Pediatric Trauma Patients.Pediatrics open science · 2026Article
- Improving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Adherence Via Implementation of a Pocket Card: A Quality Improvement Pilot Program.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Laminated Pocket Cards, Low Tech, High Yield.Epilepsy currents · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether a pocket card treatment algorithm improves the early treatment of status epilepticus and to assess its utilization and retention in clinical practice.
methodsMultidisciplinary care teams participated in video-recorded status epilepticus simulation sessions from 2015 to 2019. In this longitudinal cohort study, we examined the sessions recorded before and after introducing an internally developed, guideline-derived pocket card to determine differences in the adequacy or timeliness of rescue benzodiazepine. Simulation participants were queried 9 months later for submission of a differentiating identification number on each card to assess ongoing availability and utilization.
resultsForty-four teams were included (22 before and 22 after the introduction of the pocket card). The time to rescue therapy was shorter for teams with the pocket card available (84 seconds [64-132]) compared with teams before introduction (144 seconds [100-162]) (U = 94; median difference = -46.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -75.9 to -21.9). The adequate dosing did not differ with card availability (odds ratio 1.48, 95% CI: 0.43-5.1). At the 9-month follow-up, 32 participants (65%) completed the survey, with 26 (81%) self-reporting having the pocket card available and 11 (34%) confirming ready access with the identification number. All identification numbers submitted corresponded to the hard copy laminated pocket card, and none to the electronic version.
conclusionsA pocket card is a feasible, effective, and worthwhile educational tool to improve the implementation of updated guidelines for the treatment of status epilepticus.
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.