Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38653558›Full record

ArticleRespiratory care2024

Survey of Ventilator Waveform Interpretation Among ICU Professionals.

Ping Liu, Shan Lyu, Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila, Andrew G Miller, Fai A Albuainain, Miguel Ibarra-Estrada, Jie Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Ping LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Shan LyuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Eduardo Mireles-CabodevilaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic; and Simulation and Advanced Skills Center, Education Institute, Cleveland, Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Andrew G MillerDivision of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and Respiratory Care Services, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Fai A AlbuainainDepartment of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois; and Department of Respiratory Care, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
Miguel Ibarra-EstradaUnidad de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Civil Fray Antonio Alcalde, Universidad de Guadalajara.
Jie LiDepartment of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois jie_li@rush.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe interpretation of ventilator waveforms is essential for effective and safe mechanical ventilation but requires specialized training and expertise. This study aimed to investigate the ability of ICU professionals to interpret ventilator waveforms, identify areas requiring further education and training, and explore the factors influencing their interpretation skills.

methodsWe conducted an international online anonymous survey of ICU professionals (physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists [RTs]), with ≥ 1 y of experience working in the ICU. The survey consisted of demographic information and 15 multiple-choice questions related to ventilator waveforms. Results were compared between professions using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression (expressed as odds ratios [ORs; 95% CI]) was performed to identify factors associated with high performance, which was defined by a threshold of 60% correct answers.

resultsA total of 1,832 professionals from 31 countries or regions completed the survey; 53% of respondents answered ≥ 60% of the questions correctly. The 3 questions with the most correct responses were related to waveforms that demonstrated condensation (90%), pressure overshoot (79%), and bronchospasm (75%). Conversely, the 3 questions with the fewest correct responses were waveforms that demonstrated early cycle leading to double trigger (43%), severe under assistance (flow starvation) (37%), and early/reverse trigger (31%). Factors significantly associated with ≥ 60% correct answers included years of ICU working experience (≥ 10 y, OR 1.6 [1.2-2.0],

conclusionsSlightly over half respondents correctly identified ≥ 60% of waveforms demonstrating patient-ventilator discordance. High performance was associated with ≥ 10 years of ICU working experience, RT profession, graduate degree, working in a teaching hospital, and prior ventilator waveforms training. Some discordances were poorly recognized across all groups of surveyed professionals.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialVentilators, MechanicalAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRespiratory TherapySurveys and QuestionnairesICUsmechanical ventilationpatient-ventilator discordanceventilatorwaveform interpretation

Identifiers

PMID38653558
PMCPMC11285504

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.