ArticleBJA open2025
Improved pointer in auditory alarms enhances response accuracy.
Article in BJA open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Auditory alarms are crucial in clinical settings, alerting clinicians to events requiring immediate attention. However, multitasking can lead to missed alarms and disrupt patient care. Enhancing auditory alarms can improve patient safety and clinician satisfaction. Methods: In a controlled laboratory study, we recruited 26 clinicians (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers) and 19 non-clinicians (undergraduate students) to compare our previously validated alarm with an improved design. The improved alarm incorporates a 'pointer' (a short sound burst indicating acuity levels) enriched with harmony, intervallic change, roughness, and glissando to provide additional information to users. We measured response accuracy (correct alarm identification) and response time (seconds to respond). Results: A total of 26 clinicians and 19 non-clinicians were recruited and all participants met inclusion criteria for analysis. A mixed analysis of variance revealed a large main effect of the pointer on response accuracy (F(1,44)=9.11, Conclusions: Improved pointers demonstrated statistically significant accuracy improvement for clinicians and non-clinicians without compromising response time-a design advantage that can influence the revision of the international alarm standard and improve patient safety.
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.