ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Evaluation of a Paper-Based Checklist versus an Electronic Handover Tool Based on the Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR) Concept in Patients after Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 'Advancing Cardiovascular Risk Identification with Structured Clinical Documentation and Biosignal Derived Phenotypes Synthesis' project: conceptual design, project planning, and first implementation experiences.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- The design and application of an intensive care unit point-of-care nursing handover checklist based on the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation technique.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: we compare a new SBAR based electronic handover tool versus a paper-based checklist for handover in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). (2) Methods: this is a randomized, observational study of 40 electronic vs. 40 paper checklist handovers after pediatric cardiac surgery, with a 48 items checklist for comparison of reporting frequencies and notification of disturbances and noise. PICU staff satisfaction was evaluated by a 12-item questionnaire. (3) Results: in 14 out of 40 cases, there were problems with data processing (incomplete or no data processing). Some item groups (e.g., hemodynamics) were consistently reported at higher frequencies than other groups. Items not specifically asked for did not get reported. Some items, automatically processed in the SBAR handover page, did not get reported. Many handovers suffered a noisy and distracting atmosphere. There was no difference in staff satisfaction between the two handover approaches. Nurses were highly unsatisfied with the general approach by which the handover was performed. (4) Conclusions: human error appears to be a main factor for unreliable data processing. Software is still too complicated, and multitasking is a stressful and error prone event. Handover is a complex task with many factors required for a successful completion.
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.