ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Can we trust naked eye assessments of the capillary refill test in children? An experimental study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe capillary refill test is widely used in pediatric emergency medicine and critical care although its validity and reliability are debated. Naked eye estimation is the recommended method for capillary refill time (CR time) assessment. The goal of this study was to compare naked eye estimations of the CR time in pediatric patients to quantified capillary refill time (qCR time) using polarized reflectance imaging as an objective reference, and to investigate interobserver and intra-observer consistency of naked eye assessments of CR time.
methodA film sequence comprising videos of capillary refill tests from 15 emergency pediatric patients was shown under standardized conditions to 62 observers (pediatricians, nurses, assistant nurses, and medical secretaries). The observers' estimations of CR time in seconds and in descriptive categorizations were compared to objectively derived qCR time. Three tests were shown twice without the observers' knowledge.
resultsThere was poor interobserver agreement in all professions, with limits of agreement ranging from 1.17 s (assistant nurses) to 2.00 s (secretaries). Intra-observer agreement for estimations of both time and descriptive categorizations was limited. The correlation between naked eye assessments and qCR time was weak.
conclusionThis study shows that naked eye assessment of CR time in children is highly subjective with poor reproducibility in pediatric nurses and pediatricians, as well as in comparison to a quantitative method. Based on the lack of both inter- and intra-observer consistency in the assessments, these findings suggest that CR time assessed by naked eye should be questioned as a routine test in pediatric emergencies.
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.