ArticlePloS one2024
Interrater reliability and agreement of the NEUMOBACT checklist about infection-prevention performance of intensive care nurses in simulation-based scenarios.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the interrater reliability of the NEUMOBACT checklist and verify whether consistent results are reproducible.
methodsA validation study with a cross-sectional design, compliant with the GRRAS checklist, among ICU nurses attending a SIMULAZERO course with an Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation simulation format, to verify transfer from theory to clinical practice of knowledge and skills in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and catheter-related bacteraemia (CRB) prevention. A minimum sample size of 111 pairs of nurse raters was calculated. Interrater agreement was analysed using Gwet's AC1 for each item and as a total for each of the three checklists in the NEUMOBACT instrument.
resultsA total of 95 pairs of valid NEUMOBACT checklists were completed by 190 raters with a median age of 29 [25-35] years, 93.7% were female. At the Central Venous Catheter insertion station, Gwet's AC1 was 0.934 (95% CI [0.919-0.949]). Only 2 of the 17 items scored below 0.9. At the Endotracheal Suctioning station, Gwet's AC1 was 0.869 (95% CI [0.851-0.886]). Of the 26 items that made up this station, 16 had an agreement percentage above 0.9, a further 9 were between 0.821 and 0.884, and item 13 had a value of 0.789. At the Patient Care station, Gwet's AC1 was 0.911 (95% CI [0.896-0.927]). Of the 21 items, 17 showed an agreement percentage above 0.9 and 4 were between 0.810 and 0.894.
conclusionsThe interrater reliability of the NEUMOBACT checklist shows substantial agreement between pairs of raters and is therefore validated in this large sample of ICU nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The NEUMOBACT checklist can be useful for assessing skills before and after training in VAP and CRB prevention measures and during debriefing (post-simulation feedback), to reinforce the scientific evidence behind actions and decisions for items that have been performed incorrectly, thus consolidating training already received.
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.