Meyer Frida, Stahre Jonatan, Henricson Joakim, Wilhelms Daniel B
Department of Emergency Medicine in Linköping, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, 581 85, Sweden.
Crown Princess Victoria's Child and Youth Hospital, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
BMC Emerg Med. 2025 Mar 28;25(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01204-0.
The capillary refill test is widely used in pediatric emergency medicine and critical care although its validity and reliability are debated. Naked eye estimation is the recommended method for capillary refill time (CR time) assessment. The goal of this study was to compare naked eye estimations of the CR time in pediatric patients to quantified capillary refill time (qCR time) using polarized reflectance imaging as an objective reference, and to investigate interobserver and intra-observer consistency of naked eye assessments of CR time.
A film sequence comprising videos of capillary refill tests from 15 emergency pediatric patients was shown under standardized conditions to 62 observers (pediatricians, nurses, assistant nurses, and medical secretaries). The observers' estimations of CR time in seconds and in descriptive categorizations were compared to objectively derived qCR time. Three tests were shown twice without the observers' knowledge.
There was poor interobserver agreement in all professions, with limits of agreement ranging from 1.17 s (assistant nurses) to 2.00 s (secretaries). Intra-observer agreement for estimations of both time and descriptive categorizations was limited. The correlation between naked eye assessments and qCR time was weak.
This study shows that naked eye assessment of CR time in children is highly subjective with poor reproducibility in pediatric nurses and pediatricians, as well as in comparison to a quantitative method. Based on the lack of both inter- and intra-observer consistency in the assessments, these findings suggest that CR time assessed by naked eye should be questioned as a routine test in pediatric emergencies.
尽管毛细血管再充盈试验的有效性和可靠性存在争议,但该试验在儿科急诊医学和重症监护中被广泛应用。肉眼估计是评估毛细血管再充盈时间(CR时间)的推荐方法。本研究的目的是将儿科患者CR时间的肉眼估计与使用偏振反射成像作为客观参考的量化毛细血管再充盈时间(qCR时间)进行比较,并研究CR时间肉眼评估的观察者间和观察者内一致性。
在标准化条件下,向62名观察者(儿科医生、护士、助理护士和医疗秘书)展示了一段包含15名儿科急诊患者毛细血管再充盈试验视频的胶片序列。将观察者对CR时间的秒数估计和描述性分类与客观得出的qCR时间进行比较。在观察者不知情的情况下,其中三个测试被展示了两次。
所有职业的观察者间一致性都很差,一致性界限从1.17秒(助理护士)到2.00秒(秘书)不等。观察者内对时间和描述性分类估计的一致性有限。肉眼评估与qCR时间之间的相关性较弱。
本研究表明,儿童CR时间的肉眼评估具有高度主观性,在儿科护士和儿科医生中以及与定量方法相比,其再现性较差。基于评估中观察者间和观察者内均缺乏一致性,这些发现表明,作为儿科急诊中的常规检查,肉眼评估的CR时间应受到质疑。