ArticleTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Digitizing fluid balance monitoring may offer a solution for optimizing patient care.
Article in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examination of the role of the rotating nursing department in the training of nursing staff based on SWOT analysis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a real-life experience with a digital fluid balance monitoring technology.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecise fluid balance monitoring is essential for patient treatment, as incorrect fluid balance can lead to disorders.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the accuracy of the digital technology LICENSE (LIquid balanCE moNitoring SystEm) for fluid balance charting and compare it to the standard method (SM) to determine its usability in clinical practice.
methodsThis prospective study included 20 patients. The results from LICENSE were compared to those from SM and a reference measurement (manual weight of fluids, RM). Three LICENSE devices were used for urine output, intravenous fluids, and oral fluid intake. The accuracy of methods was evaluated using Bland Altman plots.
resultsThe mean difference between LICENSE and RM was less than 2 millilitres (p= 0.031 and p= 0.047), whereas the mean difference between SM and RM was 6.6 ml and 10.8 ml (p< 0.0001). The range between the upper and lower limits of agreement was between 16.4 and 27.8 ml for LICENSE measurements and 25.2 and 52 ml for SM.
conclusionLICENSE is comparable to or more accurate than the standard method for fluid balance monitoring. The use of LICENSE may improve the accuracy of fluid balance measurements. Further research is needed to evaluate its feasibility in daily clinical practice.
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.