在手术室使用智能秤自动监测尿量的准确性和可用性

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Se Kwang Oh , Donghyun Kim , Jiyoung Kim , Boram You , Han Seul Oh , Chiheon Kwon , Jinsun Lee , Sang-Ha Oh
{"title":"在手术室使用智能秤自动监测尿量的准确性和可用性","authors":"Se Kwang Oh ,&nbsp;Donghyun Kim ,&nbsp;Jiyoung Kim ,&nbsp;Boram You ,&nbsp;Han Seul Oh ,&nbsp;Chiheon Kwon ,&nbsp;Jinsun Lee ,&nbsp;Sang-Ha Oh","doi":"10.1016/j.advms.2023.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Urine output (UO) is an important intraoperative parameter that is not yet electronically monitored. We compared an automatic urinometer (AU) based on a smart scale with a manual urinometer (MU).</p></div><div><h3>Patients and methods</h3><p>This prospective study investigated the hourly UO of 35 preoperative patients with an indwelling urinary catheter using AU, MU, and cylinder measurements. Data were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method. A questionnaire related to the use of the AU was completed by medical staff (n=25).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to the cylinder measurements, the differences in measurements by the AU and the MU were −6.31 ​± ​15.03 ​mL/h (<em>p</em>=0.018) and 20.26 ​± ​26.81 ​mL/h (<em>p</em>=0.001), respectively. The r values for the comparison of cylinder measurements with AU and MU values were 0.985 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001) and 0.968 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001), respectively. Bland-Altman analyses showed that cylinder measurements had better agreement with the AU measurements than with the MU measurements. Also, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Compared to the MU values, AU values were noninferior; they had significantly less bias and temporal deviation. Additionally, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7347,"journal":{"name":"Advances in medical sciences","volume":"68 2","pages":"Pages 265-269"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and availability of automated urine output monitoring in the operating room using a smart scale\",\"authors\":\"Se Kwang Oh ,&nbsp;Donghyun Kim ,&nbsp;Jiyoung Kim ,&nbsp;Boram You ,&nbsp;Han Seul Oh ,&nbsp;Chiheon Kwon ,&nbsp;Jinsun Lee ,&nbsp;Sang-Ha Oh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.advms.2023.07.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Urine output (UO) is an important intraoperative parameter that is not yet electronically monitored. We compared an automatic urinometer (AU) based on a smart scale with a manual urinometer (MU).</p></div><div><h3>Patients and methods</h3><p>This prospective study investigated the hourly UO of 35 preoperative patients with an indwelling urinary catheter using AU, MU, and cylinder measurements. Data were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method. A questionnaire related to the use of the AU was completed by medical staff (n=25).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to the cylinder measurements, the differences in measurements by the AU and the MU were −6.31 ​± ​15.03 ​mL/h (<em>p</em>=0.018) and 20.26 ​± ​26.81 ​mL/h (<em>p</em>=0.001), respectively. The r values for the comparison of cylinder measurements with AU and MU values were 0.985 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001) and 0.968 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001), respectively. Bland-Altman analyses showed that cylinder measurements had better agreement with the AU measurements than with the MU measurements. Also, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Compared to the MU values, AU values were noninferior; they had significantly less bias and temporal deviation. Additionally, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in medical sciences\",\"volume\":\"68 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 265-269\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in medical sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S189611262300024X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S189611262300024X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的尿量(UO)是一个重要的术中参数,目前尚未进行电子监测。我们比较了基于智能量表的自动尿路测量仪(AU)和手动尿路测量器(MU)。患者和方法本前瞻性研究使用AU、MU和圆柱体测量法调查了35名术前留置导尿管患者的每小时尿路测量。数据采用Bland-Altman方法进行分析。医护人员(n=25)完成了一份与AU使用相关的问卷调查。结果与圆柱体测量相比,AU和MU的测量差异为−6.31​±​15.03​mL/h(p=0.018)和20.26​±​26.81​mL/h(p=0.001)。气缸测量值与AU和MU值的比较的r值分别为0.985(p<0.001)和0.968(p<001)。Bland-Altman的分析表明,圆柱体的测量值和AU的测量值比和MU的测量值更吻合。此外,医务人员报告说,AU的使用比MU的使用更容易学习(p<0.001)。结论与MU值相比,AU值不劣;他们的偏倚和时间偏差明显较小。此外,医务人员报告说,使用AU比使用MU更容易学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy and availability of automated urine output monitoring in the operating room using a smart scale

Purpose

Urine output (UO) is an important intraoperative parameter that is not yet electronically monitored. We compared an automatic urinometer (AU) based on a smart scale with a manual urinometer (MU).

Patients and methods

This prospective study investigated the hourly UO of 35 preoperative patients with an indwelling urinary catheter using AU, MU, and cylinder measurements. Data were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method. A questionnaire related to the use of the AU was completed by medical staff (n=25).

Results

Compared to the cylinder measurements, the differences in measurements by the AU and the MU were −6.31 ​± ​15.03 ​mL/h (p=0.018) and 20.26 ​± ​26.81 ​mL/h (p=0.001), respectively. The r values for the comparison of cylinder measurements with AU and MU values were 0.985 (p<0.001) and 0.968 (p<0.001), respectively. Bland-Altman analyses showed that cylinder measurements had better agreement with the AU measurements than with the MU measurements. Also, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to the MU values, AU values were noninferior; they had significantly less bias and temporal deviation. Additionally, the medical staff reported that the use of the AU was easier to learn than the use of the MU.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in medical sciences
Advances in medical sciences 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Advances in Medical Sciences is an international, peer-reviewed journal that welcomes original research articles and reviews on current advances in life sciences, preclinical and clinical medicine, and related disciplines. The Journal’s primary aim is to make every effort to contribute to progress in medical sciences. The strive is to bridge laboratory and clinical settings with cutting edge research findings and new developments. Advances in Medical Sciences publishes articles which bring novel insights into diagnostic and molecular imaging, offering essential prior knowledge for diagnosis and treatment indispensable in all areas of medical sciences. It also publishes articles on pathological sciences giving foundation knowledge on the overall study of human diseases. Through its publications Advances in Medical Sciences also stresses the importance of pharmaceutical sciences as a rapidly and ever expanding area of research on drug design, development, action and evaluation contributing significantly to a variety of scientific disciplines. The journal welcomes submissions from the following disciplines: General and internal medicine, Cancer research, Genetics, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Immunology and Allergy, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Cell and molecular Biology, Haematology, Biochemistry, Clinical and Experimental Pathology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信