ReviewCritical care (London, England)2010
Choosing patient-tailored hemodynamic monitoring.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A recommendation for the use of electrical biosensing technology in neonatology.Pediatric research · 2025Guideline
- Safety during interhospital helicopter transfer of ventilated COVID-19 patients. No clinical relevant changes in vital signs including non-invasive cardiac output.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- Four different methods of measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2021Article
- Changes in B-type Natriuretic Peptide and Related Hemodynamic Parameters Following a Fluid Challenge in Critically Ill Patients with Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2017Article
- Pulse contour analysis guided management of a case of puerperal uterine inversion and hemorrhagic shock - 'Giving what it takes'.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.