Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37998492›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.

Samuel Smith, Andrew Houghton, Brydie Mockeridge, André van Zundert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samuel SmithDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Redcliffe Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4020, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7727-526X
Andrew HoughtonFaculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Brydie MockeridgeFaculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
André van ZundertFaculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern anesthesia continues to be impacted in new and unforeseen ways by digital technology. Combining portability and versatility, mobile applications or "apps" provide a multitude of ways to enhance anesthetic and peri-operative care. Research suggests that the uptake of apps into anesthetic practice is becoming increasingly routine, especially amongst younger anesthetists brought up in the digital age. Despite this enthusiasm, there remains no consensus on how apps are safely and efficiently integrated into anesthetic practice. This review summarizes the most popular forms of app usage in anesthesia currently and explores the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing app use in anesthesia, with an emphasis on a practical approach for the modern anesthetist.

Indexed as

anesthesiadigital healthmHealthmobile applicationsperi-operative medicine

Identifiers

PMID37998492
PMCPMC10671284
OpenAlexW4388823681

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.