ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Cognitive Load in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: Tsunamis and a Thousand Cuts.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Building Clinical Artificial Intelligence at the PICU Bedside: Recognizing the Clinician-Builder.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
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
importanceExcessive cognitive load impairs task performance and contributes to burnout, but studies of cognitive load in pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) settings are limited.
objectivesTo better understand cognitive load in an academic PCCM setting and how cognitive load differs based on experience, role, task type, and task frequency. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND
participantsProspective two-part survey at a quaternary children's hospital PCCM department. Part 1 (February to March 2022) assessed routine role-specific tasks; part 2 (June to August 2022) evaluated acute resuscitation. Participants were registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), and physicians + advanced practice providers (APPs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Raw cognitive load (1-9 Paas scale), net cognitive load (Paas × task frequency), and NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) subdomain scores (0-100) for acute resuscitation. Role was the primary exposure; between-group differences were analyzed using analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons.
resultsThere were 109-part 1 and 79-part 2 survey respondents. Across all tasks, mean raw Paas scores were highest for physicians + APPs (5.2 ± 1.1), followed by RNs (4.8 ± 1.0) and RTs (4.0 ± 1.4; p = 0.004). In the three highest-load shared tasks-acute resuscitation, rescuing a decompensating patient, and managing advanced life-support devices-RNs reported significantly higher raw load than physicians + APPs and RTs. For bedside patient assessment, RNs had higher net cognitive load (25.0 ± 8.7) than physicians + APPs (20.3 ± 7.0; p = 0.01) and RTs (18.9 ± 8.9; p = 0.01). Nursing experience correlated with overall net cognitive load (r = 0.30; p = 0.02). During resuscitation, RNs reported higher NASA-TLX scores than other providers in all but two subdomains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cognitive load in PCCM varies significantly by role and task type. Nurses experience high raw cognitive load from critical events and net cognitive load from bedside patient assessment, suggesting opportunities for role-specific workflow redesign and cognitive load reduction strategies to benefit staff and patients.
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.