Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21284692›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2011

Methods in pharmacology: measurement of cardiac output.

Bart F Geerts, Leon P Aarts, Jos R Jansen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05236426 (Comparison of Cardiac Index), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05236426 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Cardiac Index (CI) Measurements Performed With Use of the Bioreactance Technology and Transpulmonary Thermodilution in Reference to Measurements Based on Echocardiography.

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Warmia and Mazury in OlsztynRan2022 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsHemodynamic Instability
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Invasive Hemodynamic and Metabolic Evaluation of HFpEF.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cardiac output and cardiac index measured with cardiovascular magnetic resonance in healthy subjects, elite athletes and patients with congestive heart failure.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2012
    Article
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

3 authors.

Bart F GeertsDepartments of Anaesthesiology Intensive Care Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. b.f.geerts@lumc.nl
Leon P Aarts
Jos R Jansen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many methods of cardiac output measurement have been developed, but the number of methods useful for human pharmacological studies is limited. The 'holy grail' for the measurement of cardiac output would be a method that is accurate, precise, operator independent, fast responding, non-invasive, continuous, easy to use, cheap and safe. This method does not exist today. In this review on cardiac output methods used in pharmacology, the Fick principle, indicator dilution techniques, arterial pulse contour analysis, ultrasound and bio-impedance are reviewed.

Indexed as

Blood Flow VelocityCarbon DioxideCardiac OutputHeart Function TestsHumansIndicator Dilution TechniquesModels, TheoreticalOxygen ConsumptionThermodilutionCarbon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID21284692
PMCPMC3045542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.