ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care2025
Reliability and validity of a new postoperative track assessment tool (PoTra-tool) as a decision-making aid: A prospective observational study.
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05092867 (Reliability and Validity of a New Postoperative Track Assessment Tool - a Prospective Observational Study), which is not on this 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.
Reliability and Validity of a New Postoperative Track Assessment Tool - a Prospective Observational Study
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
backgroundPostoperative instruments supporting decision-making for optimal care level are lacking.
objectivesThis study tested the reliability/validity of the postoperative track assessment tool (PoTra-tool) in a postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) and a specialised peri-operative intermediate care unit (IMCU).
designA prospective observational study.
settingThe PoTra-tool consists of two visual analog scales that rate estimated indication (VASi) and benefit (VASb) of care in an IMCU. The tool was tested on day 0 in both units of a Swiss university hospital, and on day 1 in the IMCU.
participantsRaters were nurses with two levels of competency (noncertified or certified) and physicians with three levels of competency (noncertified, certified, consultant).
main outcome measuresReliability, between raters and across days, was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) or weighted kappas. Validity was evaluated with validated scores (severity of illness, nurse workload and predicted mortality). Statistical analysis was carried out using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsIn total, healthcare professionals performed 4206 ratings for 879 patients with a median [IQR] age of 72 [61 to 81] years) and for American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scores 4 [4 to 4]. The median [IQR] VASi for PACU patients was 12 [2 to 30] and for IMCU patients, 76 [57 to 89]. Median VASb was 7 [1 to 19] for PACU patients and 66 [43 to 84] for IMCU patients. Internal consistency between VASi and VASb was high (Pearson correlation: 0.90). For each type of rater, reliability of VASi and VASb was acceptable to moderate for inter-rater reliability (weighted kappas: 0.59 to 0.67). The associations tested for construct validity were consistent with expected patterns, although the effect sizes were small.
conclusionThe PoTra-tool may support the decision-making process in deciding the most appropriate peri-operative level of care for an individual patient: PACU with standard care or IMCU with specialised care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05092867.
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.