ReviewJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2012
Cardiopulmonary interactions and volume status assessment.
Review in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluid responsiveness in ARDS: current evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions - a scoping review of the literature.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- A framework for heart-lung interaction and its application to prone position in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Arterial Pressure Variation in Elective Noncardiac Surgery: Identifying Reference Distributions and Modifying Factors.Anesthesiology · 2017Observational
- Context-sensitive fluid therapy in critical illness.Journal of intensive care · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of the hemodynamics and volume status is an important daily task for physicians caring for critically ill patients. There is growing consensus in the critical care community that the "traditional" methods-e.g., central venous pressure or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure-used to assess volume status and fluid responsiveness are not well supported by evidence and can be misleading. Our purpose is to provide here an overview of the knowledge needed by ICU physicians to take advantage of mechanical cardiopulmonary interactions to assess volume responsiveness. Although not perfect, such dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness can be helpful particularly in the passively ventilated patients. We discuss the impact of phasic changes in lung volume and intrathoracic pressure on the pulmonary and systemic circulation and on the heart function. We review how respirophasic changes on the venous side (great veins geometry) and arterial side (e.g., stroke volume/systolic blood pressure and surrogate signals) can be used to detect fluid responsiveness or hemodynamic alterations commonly encountered in the ICU. We review the physiological limitations of this approach.
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.