ArticleNursing in critical care2026
INPRESS: INvasive PRESSure Monitoring Knowledge and Practice Survey.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. 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.
- INPRESS: INvasive PRESSure Monitoring Knowledge and Practice Survey.Nursing in critical care · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients on Intensive Care Units (ICU), invasive arterial pressure monitoring with closed transducer systems is widely used, yet the accuracy of measurement depends on correct zeroing, levelling and interpretation of arterial waveforms.
aimThe aim was to assess the knowledge and practice of clinicians (nurses, physicians, anaesthesia/operation technicians) working in critical care, operating theatres and emergency departments about arterial blood pressure assessment and managing the closed transducer system. STUDY
designA cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Germany in May 2025. The questionnaire included 26 single- and multiple-response items on zeroing, transducer level, arterial waveform, phlebostatic axis and practical handling of the arterial line system. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test to assess associations between knowledge and professional experience or institutional setting.
resultsA total of 303 clinicians participated, the majority being ICU nurses n = 245 (81%), with n = 21 (7%) answering all questions correctly. The percentage of correct answers in multiple questions were in the sections about zeroing procedures n = 34-48 (11%-16%), transducer reference levels n = 5-232 (2%-77%), arterial pressure waveform n = 33-53 (11%-17%) and phlebostatic axis identification n = 11-101 (4%-33%). Recognition of hydrostatic, gravitational effects was higher n = 232 (77%), but scenario-based questions were correctly answered by only half. Practical handling showed variation, with n = 147 (48%) reporting correct pressure bag inflation and n = 147 (48%) avoiding heparin in flush solutions. More years of experience and employment in tertiary centres were associated with higher accuracy.
conclusionsClinicians demonstrated limited knowledge of invasive blood pressure monitoring, with significant variability across domains. Structured education, protocols and simulation-based training are needed to improve accuracy and safety. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Strengthening haemodynamic monitoring competence is essential to ensure reliable, homogenous measurements, reduce errors and enhance 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.