ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2022
Performance evaluation study of a commercially available smart patient-controlled analgesia pump with the microbalance method and an infusion analyzer.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been widely used as an effective medical treatment for pain and for postoperative analgesia. However, improper dose errors in intravenous (IV) administration of narcotic analgesics from a PCA infusion pump can cause patient harm. Furthermore, opioid overdose is considered one of the highest risk factors for patients receiving pain medications. Therefore, accurate delivery of opioid analgesics is a critical function of PCA infusion pumps. Methods: We designed a microbalance method that consisted of a closed acrylic chamber containing a layer and an oil layer with an electronic balance. A commercially available infusion analyzer (IDA-5, Fluke Co., Everett, WA, USA) was used to measure the accuracy of the infusion flow rate from a commercially available smart PCA infusion pump (PS-1000, UNIMEDICS, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and compared with the results of the microbalance method. We evaluated the uncertainty of the flow rate measurement using the ISO guide (GUM:1995 part3). The battery life, delay time of the occlusion alarm, and bolus function of the PCA pump were also tested. Results: The microbalance method was good in the short-term 2 h measurement, and IDA-5 was good in the long-term 24 h measurement. The two measurement systems can complement each other in the case of the measurement time. Regarding battery performance, PS-1000 lasted approximately 5 days in a 1 ml/hr flow rate condition without recharging the battery. The occlusion pressure alarm delays of PS-1000 satisfied the conventional alarm threshold of occlusion pressure (300-800 mmHg). Average accuracy bolus volume was measured as 63%, 95%, and 98.5% with 0.1 ml, 1 ml, and 2 ml bolus volume presets, respectively. A 1 ml/hr flow rate measurement was evaluated as 2.08% of expanded uncertainty, with a 95% confidence level. Conclusion: PS-1000 showed a flow accuracy to be within the infusion pump standard, which is ± 5% of flow accuracy. Occlusion alarm of PS-1000 was quickly transmitted, resulting in better safety for patients receiving IV infusion of opioids. PS-1000 is sufficient for a portable smart PCA infusion pump.
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.