Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25749977›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2016

In vitro evaluation of an ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device.

Shaun D Gregory, Helena Cooney, Sara Diab, Chris Anstey, Ogilvie Thom, John F Fraser

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. [Application of ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in evaluation of cardiac function in children with severe pneumonia].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2016
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shaun D GregorySchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. shaun.gregory1@gmail.com.
Helena CooneyEmergency Department, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, QLD, Australia. hcooney2@gmail.com.
Sara DiabSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. sara_diab5@hotmail.com.
Chris AnsteySchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. chris.anstey@health.qld.gov.au.
Ogilvie ThomEmergency Department, Nambour Hospital, Nambour, QLD, Australia. ontho25@gmail.com.
John F FraserSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. john_fraser@health.qld.gov.au.
University of Queensland · AUNambour General Hospital · AUPrince Charles Hospital · AURedcliffe Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive cardiac output monitoring techniques provide high yield, low risk mechanisms to identify and individually treat shock in the emergency setting. The non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device uses an ultrasound probe applied externally to the chest; however limitations exist with previous validation strategies. This study presents the in vitro validation of the USCOM device against calibrated flow sensors and compares user variability in simulated healthy and septic conditions. A validated mock circulation loop was used to simulate each condition with a range of cardiac outputs (2-10 l/min) and heart rates (50-95 bpm). Three users with varying degrees of experience using the USCOM device measured cardiac output and heart rate by placing the ultrasound probe on the mock aorta. Users were blinded to the condition, heart rate and cardiac output which were randomly generated. Results were reported as linear regression slope (β). All users estimated heart rate in both conditions with reasonable accuracy (β = 0.86-1.01), while cardiac output in the sepsis condition was estimated with great precision (β = 1.03-1.04). Users generally overestimated the cardiac output in the healthy simulation (β = 1.07-1.26) and reported greater difficulty estimating reduced cardiac output compared with higher values. Although there was some variability between users, particularly in the healthy condition (P < 0.01), all estimations were within a clinically acceptable range. In this study the USCOM provided a suitable measurement of cardiac output and heart rate when compared with our in vitro system. It is a promising technique to assist with the identification and treatment of shock.

Indexed as

Cardiac OutputEchocardiography, DopplerEmergency Medical ServicesEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisHeart Function TestsIn Vitro TechniquesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityCardiac outputMock circulation loopUSCOM

Identifiers

PMID25749977
OpenAlexW2071141093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.