ArticleBMC nursing2024
Assessment of nurse practitioners' capacity of using the ABC/2 formula for intracranial lesion volume measurement.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates the precision of nurse practitioners (NPs) in measuring intracranial lesion volumes using the ABC/2 method, a simple yet widely used technique in neurosurgical practices. Amidst physician workforce shortages, the role of NPs in clinical practice, including specialized tasks like lesion volume estimation, is gaining importance.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study involving patients treated for intracranial meningiomas. NPs estimated tumor volumes using the ABC/2 method, which was then compared with automated ABC/2 estimations considered as the gold standard. Statistical analyses, including paired sample t-tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) analysis, were employed to assess measurement accuracy and consistency.
resultsAmong the 265 meningioma patients included, NPs measured the average tumor volume as 36.95 ml, generally underestimating it compared to the 39.57 ml average obtained by the automated ABC/2 method. This underestimation, however, was clinically modest, indicated by an average percentage difference of 6.59% and a Cohen's d value of 0.08. Consistency in measurements, assessed using Bland-Altman and ICC analyses, demonstrated a high level of agreement between NPs measurements and the automated method. Additionally, no significant differences in measurement accuracy were observed either among different NPs or across NPs with varying levels of work experience.
conclusionsNurse practitioners can effectively employ the ABC/2 method for estimating intracranial lesion volumes with reasonable accuracy and consistency, irrespective of their work experience. This finding is pivotal in enhancing the role of NPs in neurosurgical practices and could be significant in alleviating the strain caused by the global shortage of physicians. Future research may explore extending NPs' roles in other clinical diagnostic and therapeutic tasks.
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.