Critically Ill Agreement

Method: We have included patients who need more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Two observers conducted systematic assessments of each patient`s resistance. The main measure of outcome was the interobserver agreement of weakness as a binary result (ICUAW is a reduction below 48; “no ICUAW” is a sum greater than or equal to 48 when Cohen`s Kappa statistics are used. The data were presented at normal distribution as a standard deviation average (SD) or median with interquartile ranges (IQR) for distorted data. Dichotomies and categorical data were presented in proportions. Intraclassical correlation coefficients (CCIs) were calculated to assess the consistency between measurements by medical students and experts. The Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess the agreement between the measurements of medical students and experts, calculating the average and SD of the differences, the 95% agreement limits (LOA) (average value of the difference ± 1.96 × SD of the difference) and the error percentage [31]. In method comparison studies, a 30% error percentage is considered acceptable if the error of the test and reference method is 20%, which is the case for the use of the thermal dilution method for the calculation of CO [32]. Since there is no reference for CCUS and only one method has been used compared to observers, an error percentage of less than 20% has been defined as clinically acceptable. This would mean that the CO difference between medical students and experts in the lower CO spectrum would be less than 0.5 l min-1 (e.g.B. if experts measured a CO of 2.5 l min-1, a CO of 2.0 to 3.0 l min-1 of the medical student would be clinically acceptable).

A 0.05 alpha error was used to display statistical significance. Statistical analyses were carried out with stata version 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, USA). Method: The study was conducted in a sub-Saharan higher education hospital in critically ill patients. The electrolyte and glucose analysis was measured with the I-STAT Abbot analyzer unit with parallel blood samples (n-30) tested in the laboratory on a selective ion electrode, the SFRI ISE 6000 analyzer. Critical Ultrasound (CCUS) is a deliberately targeted examination that aims to quickly answer simple clinical questions [1]. In the field of emergency care and intensive care, CCUS is increasingly being used to guide interventions with critically ill patients in different environments by experts and beginners [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,11,12,13,14]. The training process required for CCUS users` competency was very different between studies, reflecting the diversity of CCUS training between centres. Similarly, there are differences between participants` statements about the type of training, the number of hours the trainee spends on CCUS proficiency. However, beyond these differences, different physicians face barriers to their use, such as perceived difficulties.

B to obtain appropriate technical skills [13], training constraints, needs (perceived and real) and costs [6, 14]. The average RCN figures for each observer were 55 (IQR, 49-58) and 56 (IQR, 50-58). The total RCN score varied from 10% or more between observers to 7 (23%) 30 patients. The intraclassicular correlation coefficient of total value was 0.83 (IC 95%, 0.67 to 0.93). As shown in Table 2, the consistency of the results was poor for different muscle groups, especially in the proxenal muscles.

Comments are closed.