Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

Development and evaluation of an appraisal form to assess clinical effectiveness of adult invasive mechanical ventilation systems

Li Hong, Chen Li-Li, Li Na

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2012

doi:10.1186/1757-7241-20-45 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rapid developments in intensive care medicine have made mechanical ventilation an essential method in the resuscitation and comprehensive treatment of critical care patients. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an appraisal form assessing the clinical effectiveness of adult invasive mechanical ventilation systems. METHODS: An appraisal form was designed according to the effectiveness evaluation theory of the American Weapons Systems Effectiveness Industry Advisory Committee (WSEIAC) along with literature review and expert panel review. Content validity of the preliminary form was analyzed in a cohort of 200 patients. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess appraisal form validity. Discriminate validity of different ventilation outcomes was analyzed by t test. Test/retest reliability and inter-scorer reliability were evaluated with 30 patients after a 2-week interval by Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis showed eigenvalues for 3 dimensions (availability, dependability, capability) to be 7.85, 4.43, and 4.22, respectively. Cronbach's α for internal consistency of the appraisal form was 0.957, and 0.922, 0.961 and 0.937, respectively, for the 3 dimensions. Test-retest reliability of 3 dimensions was 0.976, and 0.862, 0.857, 0.885, respectively. Intra-class correlation coefficient verified test-retest reliability; ICC 0.976 and 0.862, 0.857, 0.885 for 3 dimensions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The appraisal form for clinical effectiveness of adult invasive mechanical ventilation systems has high reliability and validity and may be used in clinical setting.

Abstract licence: CC BY

References50

    50 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

    Reads

    Read by people on this page

    None yet.

    Checked or read by AI through naulon

    None yet.

    A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

    Are you an author?

    Is this your paper?

    Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.