ArticleScientific reports2023
Hematic auto-management and extraction for arterial line (HAMEL), a blood-preserving arterial line system: an animal study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive arterial line insertion is a common procedure in the intensive care unit ICU; however, it can cause unnecessary blood loss while procuring blood for laboratory tests. To reduce blood loss resulting from flushing out the arterial line dead space, we developed a new blood-preserving arterial line system: Hematic Auto-Management & Extraction for arterial Line (HAMEL, MUNE Corp.). Five male three-way crossbred pigs were used to evaluate the necessary amount of blood to be withdrawn before sampling to produce accurate results. We then tested whether the traditional sampling method and the HAMEL system showed non-inferior results for blood tests. Blood gas (CG4 + cartridge) and chemistry (CHEM8 + cartridge) analyses were used for comparison. The total unnecessary blood loss in the traditional sampling group was 5 mL/sample. For HAMEL, withdrawing 3 mL of blood before sampling yielded hematocrit and hemoglobin results within 90% confidence interval of traditional sampling group. Most intra-class correlation coefficients between the traditional sampling and HAMEL system groups were > 0.90. When compared to the traditional sampling method, withdrawal of 3 mL with HAMEL was sufficient before blood sampling. Utilization of the HAMEL system was not inferior to the traditional hand-sampling method. In addition, no unnecessary blood loss occurred in the HAMEL system.
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.