ArticleJAMIA open2022
Measuring intraoperative surgical instrument use with radio-frequency identification.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The rise of green orthopaedics: a bibliometric mapping and thematic evaluation of the global research landscape.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Quantifying the U.S. surgical instrument fleet and its reprocessing burden: implications for cost and sustainability in healthcare.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Optimized Nursing Management for Ophthalmic Surgical Instruments: A Retrospective Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Streamlining surgical instrument counting: a matrixed multiple case study on the fidelity of weighing systems in the operating room.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- A Day in the Life of a Surgical Instrument: The Cycle of Sterilization.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSurgical instrument oversupply drives cost, confusion, and workload in the operating room. With an estimated 78%-87% of instruments being unused, many health systems have recognized the need for supply refinement. By manually recording instrument use and tasking surgeons to review instrument trays, previous quality improvement initiatives have achieved an average 52% reduction in supply. While demonstrating the degree of instrument oversupply, previous methods for identifying required instruments are qualitative, expensive, lack scalability and sustainability, and are prone to human error. In this work, we aim to develop and evaluate an automated system for measuring surgical instrument use. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe present the first system to our knowledge that automates the collection of real-time instrument use data with radio-frequency identification (RFID). Over 15 breast surgeries, 10 carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasties, and 4 craniotomies, instrument use was tracked by both a trained observer manually recording instrument use and the RFID system.
resultsThe average Cohen's Kappa agreement between the system and the observer was 0.81 (near perfect agreement), and the system enabled a supply reduction of 50.8% in breast and orthopedic surgery. Over 10 monitored breast surgeries and 1 CMC arthroplasty with reduced trays, no eliminated instruments were requested, and both trays continue to be used as the supplied standard. Setup time in breast surgery decreased from 23 min to 17 min with the reduced supply.
conclusionThe RFID system presented herein achieves a novel data stream that enables accurate instrument supply optimization.
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.