Trial reportCJEM2024
Completeness and accuracy of digital charting vs paper charting in simulated pediatric cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in CJEM, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if data collected through digital charting are more complete and more accurate compared to traditional paper-based charting during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest.
methodsWe performed a single-center simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to a novel handheld digital charting device (intervention group) or to the standard resuscitation paper chart (control group). Participants documented two 15-min simulated pediatric cardiac arrest scenarios. We compared the charting completeness between the two groups. Completeness score (primary outcome) was established by calculating a completeness score for each group based on a list of pre-determined critical tasks. Charting accuracy (secondary outcome) was compared between the two groups, defined as the time interval between the real-time task performance and charted time.
resultsCharting data from 34 simulated cardiac arrest events were included in the analysis (n = 18 intervention; n = 16 control). The paper charting group had a higher completeness score (median (IQR) paper vs digital: 72.0% (66.4-76.9%) vs 65.0% (58.5-66.4%), p = 0.015). For accuracy, the digital charting group was superior to the paper charting group for all pre-established critical tasks.
conclusionCompared to paper-based charting, digital charting group captured more critical tasks during pediatric simulated resuscitation and was more accurate in the time intervals between real-time tasks performance and charted time. For tasks charted, paper-based charting was significantly more complete and more detailed during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38097910What 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.