ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Automated alerts and intraoperative noninvasive blood pressure monitoring gaps: a retrospective before-and-after study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring is recommended at least every 5 min during anesthesia, yet prolonged gaps between documented measurements still occur in routine practice. These gaps may reflect workflow interruptions, device-related factors, or failure to recognize outdated displayed values. We evaluated whether implementation of a vendor-embedded NIBP measurement gap alert was associated with fewer prolonged intraoperative NIBP monitoring gaps.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective before-and-after study using anesthesia information management system data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024. A vendor-embedded on-screen alert was implemented on February 24, 2021, and was triggered when no NIBP value had been charted for ≥ 5 min. Eligible cases were anesthesiology-managed surgical cases without arterial catheter monitoring or continuous non-invasive finger-cuff monitoring. The primary outcome was the case-level occurrence of at least one ≥ 10-minute NIBP measurement gap (gap10). Secondary outcomes were the maximum NIBP measurement interval per case (gaptime) and the occurrence of a ≥ 20% systolic blood pressure (SBP) change across the maximum NIBP measurement interval. Multivariable models adjusted for prespecified case-mix covariates and calendar time.
resultsThe analytic cohort included 34,233 cases, comprising 15,186 pre-alert and 19,047 post-alert cases. Gap10 occurred in 1,890 cases (5.52%): 1,014 of 15,186 (6.68%) in the pre-alert period and 876 of 19,047 (4.60%) in the post-alert period. In adjusted logistic regression, the post-alert period was associated with lower odds of gap10 than the pre-alert period (odds ratio [OR], 0.673; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.499-0.906). In an adjusted Gamma model with a log link, the post-alert period was associated with a shorter expected gaptime (expected ratio, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.923-0.980). The post-alert period was also associated with lower odds of a ≥ 20% SBP change across the maximum NIBP measurement interval (OR, 0.796; 95% CI, 0.699-0.907).
conclusionsAmong anesthetic cases without arterial catheter monitoring or continuous non-invasive finger-cuff monitoring, the alert was associated with fewer ≥ 10-min gaps, shorter maximum NIBP intervals, and lower odds of a ≥ 20% SBP change across the maximum NIBP interval.
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.