Trial reportPloS one2013
The PhysioFlow thoracic impedancemeter is not valid for the measurements of cardiac hemodynamic parameters in chronic anemic patients.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Pooled it
- Left Ventricular Function Before and After Aerobic Exercise Training in Women With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2019Trial
- Non-invasive assessment of stroke volume and cardiovascular parameters based on peripheral pressure waveform.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Retrospective comparison of approaches to evaluating inter-observer variability in CT tumour measurements in an academic health centre.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Understanding the Haemodynamics of Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2018Review
- Stroke Volume Monitoring: Novel Continuous Wave Doppler Parameters, Algorithms and Advanced Noninvasive Haemodynamic Concepts.Current anesthesiology reports · 2017Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to test the validity of the transthoracic electrical bioimpedance method PhysioFlow® to measure stroke volume in patients with chronic anemia. Stroke volume index (SVI), as well as cardiac index (CI) obtained by transthoracic electrical bioimpedance method and doppler echocardiography were compared in healthy subjects (n = 25) and patients with chronic anemia (i.e. mainly with sickle cell anemia; n = 32), at rest. While doppler echocardiography was able to detect difference in SVI between the two populations, the Physioflow® failed to detect any difference. Bland & Altman analyses have demonstrated no interchangeability between the two methods to assess CI and SVI in anemic patients and healthy subjects. While doppler echocardiography displayed a good concordance for SVI results with those obtained in the literature for anemic patients, the Physioflow® did not. Finally, in contrast to doppler echocardiography: 1) the CI obtained with the Physioflow® was not correlated with the hemoglobin level and 2) the stroke volume determined by the Physioflow® was highly influenced by body surface area. In conclusion, our findings indicate that the Physioflow® device is inaccurate for the measurement of SVI and CI in patients with chronic anemia and has a poor accuracy for the measurement of these parameters in African healthy subjects.
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.