Cognitive aids in the management of clinical emergencies: a systematic review
Pooled result · Missed care stepsResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.29 95% CI 0.15–0.16Study context
- Population
- Anaesthetic, medical, surgical or trauma emergencies involving adults13 RCTs
- Comparison
- Cognitive aids vs usual care
- Outcome
- Completeness of care delivered to the patient (missed care steps)
Methodological detailsMost trials used only clinicians in developing and testing the cognitive aids; only some provided familiarisation before deployment
- Most trials used only clinicians in developing and testing the cognitive aids; only some provided familiarisation before deployment
Pooled result
Missed care steps
Relative risk
0.29
95% CI 0.15–0.16
P < 0.001
By group
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
Errors, correctly performed steps, teamwork, non-technical skills, conflict resolution and team performance scores
- Fewer errors, more correctly performed steps and improved teamwork, non-technical skills, subjective conflict resolution and global team performance scores with cognitive aids
Time to first intervention and time to complete care
- Inconsistent influence of cognitive aids
Original publication
Cognitive aids in the management of clinical emergencies: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. Published 14 December 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →