ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring the feasibility of pupillometry training and perceptions of potential use for intracranial pressure monitoring in Uganda: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraumatic brain injury (TBI) accounts for the majority of Uganda's neurosurgical disease burden; however, invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is infrequently used. Noninvasive monitoring could change the care of patients in such a setting through quick detection of elevated ICP. PURPOSE: Given the novelty of pupillometry in Uganda, this mixed methods study assessed the feasibility of pupillometry for noninvasive ICP monitoring for patients with TBI.
methodsTwenty-two healthcare workers in Kampala, Uganda received education on pupillometry, practiced using the device on healthy volunteers, and completed interviews discussing pupillometry and its implementation. Interviews were assessed with qualitative analysis, while quantitative analysis evaluated learning time, measurement time, and accuracy of measurements by participants compared to a trainer's measurements.
resultsMost participants (79%) reported a positive perception of pupillometry. Participants described the value of pupillometry in the care of patients during examination, monitoring, and intervention delivery. Commonly discussed concerns included pupillometry's cost, understanding, and maintenance needs. Perceived implementation challenges included device availability and contraindications for use. Participants suggested offering continued education and engaging hospital leadership as implementation strategies. During training, the average learning time was 13.5 minutes (IQR 3.5), and the measurement time was 50.6 seconds (IQR 11.8). Paired t-tests to evaluate accuracy showed no statistically significant difference in comparison measurements.
conclusionPupillometry was considered acceptable for noninvasive ICP monitoring of patients with TBI, and pupillometer use was shown to be feasible during training. However, key concerns would need to be addressed during implementation to aid device utilization.
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.