Trial reportIndian pediatrics2025
Tele-PICU Kiosk as an Adjunct to Standard Monitoring and Care: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Indian pediatrics, 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
objectiveThis study aimed to determine whether using videoconferencing for pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) rounds with the help of a tele-PICU kiosk in addition to standard care impacts survival outcomes and duration of hospital stay.
methodsAn open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in the PICU of a tertiary care center in India on a sample size of 120 children, randomized into two groups using computer-generated randomization tables. Patients with a PICU stay of < 24 h were excluded. The intervention group received tele-rounds using the tele-PICU kiosk daily for the first 3 days or discharge, whichever was earlier, in addition to standard care, while the control group received standard care. Consultation feedback was given to the treating team. Both groups were followed-up for survival outcome at the time of hospital discharge and 60 days after discharge.
resultsThe intervention group had better patient survival at the time of discharge [51 (85%) vs. 41 (68.3%), P = 0.031; RR 2.63 (95%CI 1.07-6.42)] and at 60 days after hospital discharge [49 (81.7%) vs. 38 (63.3%), P = 0.025; RR 2.58 (95% CI 1.11-5.96)]. The intervention group had a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay [8 (5, 13) vs. 13 (7, 21) days, P = 0.044) and PICU stay [1.5 (1, 8) vs. 4 (1, 15) days; P = 0.045). The median cost difference shows a reduction in direct cost, but it could not achieve statistical significance.
conclusionTele-rounds using tele-PICU kiosk as an adjunct to standard care showed better survival, reduced duration of hospital and PICU stay, and reduced cost trends for children admitted to the PICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41060552What 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.