Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37009282›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2023

Use of eye-tracking to evaluate human factors in accessing neonatal resuscitation equipment and medications for advanced resuscitation: A simulation study.

Linda Gai Rui Chen, Brenda Hiu Yan Law

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Linda Gai Rui ChenDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Brenda Hiu Yan LawDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency neonatal resuscitation equipment is often organized into "code carts". Simulation studies previously examined human factors of neonatal code carts and equipment; however, visual attention analysis with eye-tracking might further inform equipment design. Objectives: To evaluate human factors of neonatal resuscitation equipment by: (1) comparing epinephrine preparation speed from adult pre-filled syringe vs. medication vial, (2) comparing equipment retrieval times from two carts and (3) utilizing eye-tracking to study visual attention and user experience. Methods: We conducted a 2-site randomized cross-over simulation study. Site 1 is a perinatal NICU with carts focused on airway management. Site 2 is a surgical NICU with carts improved with compartments and task-based kits. Participants were fitted with eye-tracking glasses then randomized to prepare two epinephrine doses using two methods, starting with an adult epinephrine prefilled syringe or a multiple access vial. Participants then obtained items for 7 tasks from their local cart. Post-simulation, participants completed surveys and semi-structured interviews while viewing eye-tracked video of their performance. Epinephrine preparation times were compared between the two methods. Equipment retrieval times and survey responses were compared between sites. Eye-tracking was analyzed for areas of interest (AOIs) and gaze shifts between AOIs. Interviews were subject to thematic analysis. Results: Forty HCPs participated (20/site). It was faster to draw the first epinephrine dose using the medication vial (29.9s vs. 47.6s, Conclusions: Eye-tracked simulations provided human factors assessment of emergency neonatal code carts and epinephrine preparation.

Indexed as

eye-trackinghuman factorsinfantneonatal resuscitationnewborn

Identifiers

PMID37009282
PMCPMC10060515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.