Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26113992›Full record

ArticleCritical care research and practice2015

Pressure Measurement Techniques for Abdominal Hypertension: Conclusions from an Experimental Model.

Sascha Santosh Chopra, Stefan Wolf, Veit Rohde, Florian Baptist Freimann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A sudden presentation of abdominal compartment syndrome.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sascha Santosh ChopraDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Stefan WolfDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Veit RohdeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Göttingen, Georg-August University, 37099 Göttingen, Germany.
Florian Baptist FreimannDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Göttingen, Georg-August University, 37099 Göttingen, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement is an indispensable tool for the diagnosis of abdominal hypertension. Different techniques have been described in the literature and applied in the clinical setting. Methods. A porcine model was created to simulate an abdominal compartment syndrome ranging from baseline IAP to 30 mmHg. Three different measurement techniques were applied, comprising telemetric piezoresistive probes at two different sites (epigastric and pelvic) for direct pressure measurement and intragastric and intravesical probes for indirect measurement. Results. The mean difference between the invasive IAP measurements using telemetric pressure probes and the IVP measurements was -0.58 mmHg. The bias between the invasive IAP measurements and the IGP measurements was 3.8 mmHg. Compared to the realistic results of the intraperitoneal and intravesical measurements, the intragastric data showed a strong tendency towards decreased values. The hydrostatic character of the IAP was eliminated at high-pressure levels. Conclusion. We conclude that intragastric pressure measurement is potentially hazardous and might lead to inaccurately low intra-abdominal pressure values. This may result in missed diagnosis of elevated abdominal pressure or even ACS. The intravesical measurements showed the most accurate values during baseline pressure and both high-pressure plateaus.

Identifiers

PMID26113992
PMCPMC4465705
OpenAlexW1590613040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.