Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2013
Cardiac index assessment using bioreactance in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery in ovarian carcinoma.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy: Concepts, indications and risks].Der Anaesthesist · 2015Pooled it
- Reliability of bioreactance and pulse power analysis in measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).BMC anesthesiology · 2023Article
- Dynamic Measurement of Hemodynamic Parameters and Cardiac Preload in Adults with Dengue: A Prospective Observational Study.PloS one · 2016Observational
- Bioreactance Is Not Interchangeable with Thermodilution for Measuring Cardiac Output during Adult Liver Transplantation.PloS one · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This clinical study compared the cardiac index (CI) assessed by the totally non-invasive method of bioreactance (CIBR) (NICOM™, Cheetah Medical, Vancouver, USA) to transpulmonary thermodilution (CITD) during cytoreductive surgery in ovarian carcinoma. The hypothesis was that CI could be assessed by bioreactance in an accurate and precise manner including accurate trending ability when compared to transpulmonary thermodilution. In 15 patients CIBR and CITD were assessed after induction of anesthesia, after opening of the peritoneum, hourly during the operative procedure, and 30 min after extubation. Trending ability was assessed between the described timepoints. In total 84 points of measurement were analyzed. Concordance correlation coefficient for repeated measures correlating the CIBR and CITD was 0.32. Bias was 0.26 l/min/m(2) (limits of agreement -1.39 and 1.92 l/min/m(2)). The percentage error was 50.7 %. Trending ability quantified by the mean of angles θ which are made by the ΔCI vector and the line of identity (y = x) showed a value for CIBR of θ = 23.4°. CI assessment by bioreactance showed acceptable accuracy and trending ability. However, its precision was poor. Therefore, CI measurement can not be solely based on bioreactance in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery in ovarian carcinoma.
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.