Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443522›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2024

Balancing pediatric device utility and harm: navigating the challenges for safer healthcare.

Facundo Jorro-Barón, Pedro Taffarel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Facundo Jorro-BarónInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy -IECS- Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. fjorro@iecs.org.ar.ORCID 0000-0001-6887-9275
Pedro TaffarelHospital Pedro de Elizalde, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses the challenges in balancing the utility and harm associated with pediatric medical devices. Takashima et al. explored the prevalence and complications of invasive devices across three Australian pediatric tertiary hospitals and reported a high prevalence of complications, particularly with vascular access devices. We also highlight the need to pay attention to the use of these devices, particularly intravenous catheters, and the importance of a culture of patient safety in healthcare systems. We emphasize the need for a nuanced approach that carefully weighs the benefits against potential risks and encourages collaboration among stakeholders to establish robust regulatory frameworks and prioritize the safety and well-being of pediatric patients. Finally, we conclude by advocating the involvement of parents and families in gathering information about hospital safety incidents and fostering a culture of safety that supports reporting, flexibility, and learning. IMPACT: Reporting adverse events and their consequences is essential in the strategy to prevent them, allowing comparison with national or international standards, and identifying indicators to optimize and harbor the possibility of determining improvement measures that pursue a multifactorial approach and are cost-effective. Our comment advocates limiting the prevalence of medical invasive devices and their consequences by reviewing their epidemiology. Although advancements in medical technology have undoubtedly improved the diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities, the delicate balance between device utility and potential harm necessitates careful consideration.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyAustraliaChildDelivery of Health CareEquipment and SuppliesHumansPediatricsVascular Access Devices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.