ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
A comparative analysis of intravenous infusion methods for low-resource environments.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- Application of a portable sealed positive pressure infusion device in a porcine model of hemorrhagic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of an IoT-based intelligent infusion monitoring system on the intravenous infusion safety of hospitalized patients: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Intravenous (IV) therapy is a crucial aspect of care for the critically ill patient. Barriers to IV infusion pumps in low-resource settings include high costs, lack of access to electricity, and insufficient technical support. Inaccuracy of traditional drop-counting practices places patients at risk. By conducting a comparative assessment of IV infusion methods, we analyzed the efficacy of different devices and identified one that most effectively bridges the gap between accuracy, cost, and electricity reliance in low-resource environments. Methods: In this prospective mixed methods study, nurses, residents, and medical students used drop counting, a manual flow regulator, an infusion pump, a DripAssist, and a DripAssist with manual flow regulator to collect normal saline at goal rates of 240, 120, and 60 mL/h. Participants' station setup time was recorded, and the amount of fluid collected in 10 min was recorded (in milliliters). Participants then filled out a post-trial survey to rate each method (on a scale of 1 to 5) in terms of understandability, time consumption, and operability. Cost-effectiveness for use in low-resource settings was also evaluated. Results: The manual flow regulator had the fastest setup time, was the most cost effective, and was rated as the least time consuming to use and the easiest to understand and operate. In contrast, the combination of the DripAssist and manual flow regulator was the most time consuming to use and the hardest to understand and operate. Conclusion: The manual flow regulator alone was the least time consuming and easiest to operate. The DripAssist/Manual flow regulator combination increases accuracy, but this combination was the most difficult to operate. In addition, the manual flow regulator was the most cost-effective. Healthcare providers can adapt these devices to their practice environments and improve the safety of rate-sensitive IV medications without significant strain on electricity, time, or personnel resources.
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.