ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Cognitive Aid for Anesthetic Preparation in An Emergency Situation: A Simulation-Based Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When anesthesia checklists and preparations are performed urgently, omissions may occur and be deleterious to the patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate in simulation the interest of a cognitive aid to effectively prepare an anesthetic room for an emergency. In a prospective single-center simulation-based study, 32 anesthesia residents had to prepare an anesthetic room in an emergency scenario, without cognitive aid in the first phase. Three months later (phase 2), they were randomly assigned to receive a cognitive aid (aid group) or no additional aid (control) and were involved in the same scenario. The primary outcome was the validation rate of each essential item in the first 5 min in phase 2. Eight items were significantly more frequently completed in the first 5 min in the aid group in phase 2 (vs. phase 1), compared with two only in the control group. However, there were no significant differences in the overall number of completed items between the two groups, as both groups completed significantly more items in phase 2, either in the first 5 min (19 (14-23) vs. 13 (9-15) in phase 1 for all residents,
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.