ArticleOTO open
Validation of a Novel Mobile Application for Assessing Pediatric Tracheostomy Emergency Simulations.
Article in OTO open. 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.
- PEAK-II Trach: A Multi-Institutional Quality Improvement/Simulation Study Assessing Pediatric Emergency Readiness.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Assessing and enhancing pediatric residents' knowledge and skills in tracheostomy care through simulation-based training.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pediatric tracheostomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality, yet clinician knowledge and quality of tracheostomy care may vary widely. In situ simulation is effective at detecting and mitigating related latent safety threats, but evaluation via retrospective video review has disadvantages (eg, delayed analysis, and potential data loss). We evaluated whether a novel mobile application is accurate and reliable for assessment of in situ tracheostomy emergency simulations. Methods: A novel mobile application was developed for assessment of tracheostomy emergency in situ simulation team performance. After 1.25 hours of training, 6 raters scored 10 tracheostomy emergency simulation videos for the occurrence and timing of 12 critical steps. To assess accuracy, rater scores were compared to a reference standard to determine agreement for occurrence or absence of critical steps and a timestamp within ±5 seconds. Interrater reliability was determined through Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Raters had 86.0% agreement with the reference standard when considering step occurrence and timing, and 92.8% agreement when considering only occurrence. The average timestamp difference from the reference standard was 1.3 ± 18.5 seconds. Overall interrater reliability was almost perfect for both step occurrence (Fleiss' kappa of 0.81) and timing of step (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99). Discussion: Using our novel mobile application, raters with minimal training accurately and reliably assessed videos of tracheostomy emergency simulations and identified areas for future refinement. Implications for Practice: With refinements, this innovative mobile application is an effective tool for real-time data capture of time-critical steps in in situ tracheostomy emergency simulations.
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.