ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Physician preferences associated with powered intraosseous access systems: Safety features, reliability, and ease of use.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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.
- Physician preferences associated with powered intraosseous access systems: Safety features, reliability, and ease of use.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated physician preferences and values related to the most commonly used (traditional) powered intraosseous (IO) system and a novel powered IO system featuring a passive safety needle, battery life indicator, and snap-securement/skin attachment. Methods: Emergency physicians participated in an IO simulation using both the traditional and novel IO systems. Participants completed a 27-item postsimulation questionnaire to state their preferences toward each IO system and values related to the novel IO system features using a multiple choice, 11-point value ranking scale (0 = no value, 10 = extremely valuable) and free-text answer questions. Results: Among the 22 study participants, 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.8%, 98.9%) preferred the novel IO system; top reasons for this preference were the novel IO system's passive safety needle and snap-securement/skin attachment. Participants who preferred the traditional IO system (9.1%) noted its ease of use and familiarity. Many physicians preferred the novel IO system's needle (81.8%; 95% CI: 59.7%, 94.8%), powered driver (77.3%; 95% CI: 54.6%, 92.2%), and snap-securement/skin attachment (100%; 95% CI: 84.6%, 100%) compared with the traditional IO system. Safety and ease of use were the most common preference explanations. Of the participants, 100% provided a value score ≥7 for the novel IO system's passive safety needle (mean score, 9.45), whereas fewer participants (59.1%) gave a value score ≥7 for the multilight battery life indicator (mean score, 6.68). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that emergency physicians prefer and value a novel IO system with features that enhance safety and ease of use. These results provide insight into important factors related to IO systems for emergency physicians.
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.