Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18256382›Full record

ReviewClinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN2008

Advances in critical care for the nephrologist: hemodynamic monitoring and volume management.

Danielle Davison, Christopher Junker

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Critical care nephrology: Core Curriculum 2009.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2009
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Danielle DavisonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, George Washington University, 900 23rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA. ddavison@mfa.gwu.edu
Christopher Junker
George Washington University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The monitoring of physiologic variables is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of the critically ill patient. Restoration of tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery is the ultimate goal for any state of circulatory collapse. Insight into a patient's intravascular volume status and cardiac performance, particularly in the early stages of shock, can help guide management and potentially change outcome. In the past 30 years, various bedside monitoring techniques and indices have been developed in an effort to determine and optimize a patient's cardiac performance. This article reviews the physiologic parameters that best predict intravascular volume status and volume responsiveness. We examine the controversies surrounding the pulmonary arterial catheter and describe the less invasive methods of measuring cardiac performance.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsMonitoring, PhysiologicNephrologyPlasma SubstitutesCritical CareHumansPlasma Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID18256382
PMCPMC6631089
OpenAlexW2115354207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.