Observational studyNeurocritical care2024
Smartphone Use in the Management of Neurological Emergencies: A Simulation-Based Study.
Observational study in Neurocritical care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmartphone use in medicine is nearly universal despite a dearth of research assessing utility in clinical performance. We sought to identify and define smartphone use during simulated neuroemergencies.
methodsIn this retrospective review of a prospective observational single-center simulation-based study, participants ranging from subinterns to attending physicians and stratified by training level (novice, intermediate, and advanced) managed a variety of neurological emergencies. The primary outcome was frequency and purpose of smartphone use. Secondary outcomes included success rate of smartphone use and performance (measured by completion of critical tasks) of participants who used smartphones versus those who did not. In subgroup analyses we compared outcomes across participants by level of training using t-tests and χ
resultsOne hundred and three participants completed 245 simulation scenarios. Smartphones were used in 109 (45%) simulations. Of participants using smartphones, 102 participants looked up medication doses, 52 participants looked up management guidelines, 11 participants looked up hospital protocols, and 13 participants used smartphones for assistance with an examination scale. Participants found the correct answer 73% of the time using smartphones. There was an association between participant level and smartphone use with intermediate participants being more likely to use their smartphones than novice or advanced participants, 53% versus 29% and 26%, respectively (p < 0.05). Of the intermediate participants, those who used smartphones did not perform better during the simulation scenario than participants who did not use smartphones (smartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.3 [2.9] vs. nonsmartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.9 (2.7), p = 0.85).
conclusionsParticipants commonly used smartphones in simulated neuroemergencies but use didn't confer improved clinical performance. Less experienced participants were the most likely to use smartphones and less likely to arrive at correct conclusions, and thus are the most likely to benefit from an evidence-based smartphone application for neuroemergencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38773041What 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.