Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 4 February 2016
- Published on: 6 January 2016
- Published on: 23 December 2015
- Published on: 4 February 2016Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholderShow More
We appreciate the comments from Fairchild et al., and acknowledge that HRC monitoring has value in their NICU as an additional vital sign that may lead to increased provider attention. Our finding of a significantly lower correlation of HRC and proven sepsis likely stems from the difference in the definition used and highlights both a significant problem with diagnostic testing for neonatal sepsis in general (1) and the p...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 6 January 2016Beauty is in the eye of the beholderShow More
Regarding Coggins' Heart rate characteristic index monitoring for bloodstream infection in an NICU: a 3-year experience:
Wirschafter[1] has labeled the CDC definition a minimum estimate of infection burden, while labeling antibiotic administration a maximum estimate. The authors refuse to provide metrics such as Specificity and NPV on the grounds that establishing health of the patients was not possible. By...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 23 December 2015Proper Use of the Heart Rate Characteristics Monitor in the NICUShow More
In the report "Heart rate characteristics index monitoring for bloodstream infection in an NICU: a 3-year experience", Coggins and colleagues make several observations that are important for properly using the HRC (HeRO) monitor in the NICU: 1) Continuous monitoring is more effective than intermittent. Coggins analyzed scores recorded in the medical record every 12 hours, or 8% of the hourly scores; high scores may have...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.