ArticleRevista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo2026
Physicians' eye-tracking in neonatal intensive care: evaluating a mechanical ventilator panel.
Article in Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssess physicians' visual attention when evaluating a mechanical ventilator panel to decide whether to adjust ventilatory parameters in a newborn on mechanical ventilation.
methodsExperimental study involving physicians caring for critically ill neonates. Three clinical scenarios related to arterial blood gas abnormalities (hypoxemia, hypercarbia or normal blood gases) were presented on a computer screen, followed by a 30-second video of a ventilator panel while eye-tracker recorded their gaze. Three areas of interest (AOI) were defined: monitored parameters, adjusted parameters, curves and loops. Visual attention was analyzed in the first 10 seconds of the video. Outcomes included visual fixation (Yes/No), number, and duration (seconds) of visual fixations on each AOI. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes among AOI.
resultsSeventy-five physicians participated, with ocular signal capture acquisition in 95±5% of the time. All physicians (100%) fixated their gaze on the curves/loops, 95% on monitored parameters and 80% on adjusted parameters. Visual fixations were more frequent and longer for curves/loops (8.03±5.98; 2.07±1.61sec), followed by monitored (5.40±5.00; 1.21±1.29sec) and by adjusted parameters (14.72±7.64; 3.71±2.12sec). No differences were observed across clinical scenarios. Physicians without specialization in neonatology or pediatric intensive care focused more on adjusted parameters than specialists.
conclusionsWhen evaluating a ventilator panel to decide respiratory management, physicians focused more on the curves and loops, regardless of the clinical scenario. Physicians without specialized training in neonatology or pediatric intensive care had greater visual fixation on adjusted parameters of the ventilator panel than specialists.
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.