This study showed that participants did not perceive the ABG parameters better, but using Visual Blood resulted in more correct clinical diagnoses than using conventional ABG printouts. There was no or, respectively, weak evidence for a difference in diagnostic confidence (OR, 0.84 95% CI, 0.58–1.21 p = 0.34) and perceived workload (Coefficient, 2.44 95% CI, −0.09–4.98 p = 0.06). Additionally, the study revealed two times higher odds of making the correct clinical diagnosis using Visual Blood (OR, 2.16 95% CI, 1.42–3.29 p < 0.001) than using ABG printouts. Analysing 300 within-subject cases, we showed noninferiority of Visual Blood compared to ABG printouts concerning the rate of correctly perceived ABG parameters (rate ratio, 0.96 95% CI, 0.92–1.00 p = 0.06). To analyse the results, we used mixed models and matched odds ratios. The secondary outcomes included correct clinical diagnoses, perceived diagnostic confidence, and perceived workload. The primary outcome was ABG parameter perception. We presented six scenarios to anaesthesiologists, once with Visual Blood and once with the conventional ABG printout. This computer-based, multicentre, noninferiority study compared Visual Blood and conventional arterial blood gas (ABG) printouts. To foster fast and correct interpretation of blood gas results, we developed Visual Blood. Interpreting blood gas analysis results can be challenging for the clinician, especially in stressful situations under time pressure.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |