ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2016
Does using two Doppler cardiac output monitors in tandem provide a reliable trend line of changes for validation studies?
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing measurement methods using linear least squares regression.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018Article
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2016 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2017Review
- The effect of head up tilting on bioreactance cardiac output and stroke volume readings using suprasternal transcutaneous Doppler as a control in healthy young adults.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demise of the pulmonary artery catheter as a gold standard in cardiac output measurement has created the need for new standard. Doppler cardiac output can be measured suprasternally (USCOM) and via the oesophagus (CardioQ). Use in tandem they may provide a reliable trend line of cardiac output changes against which new technologies can be assessed. Data from three similar clinical studies was pooled. Simultaneous USCOM and CardioQ readings, 13 (7-27), were performed every 15-30 min intraoperatively. Within individual patient regression analysis was performed. Data was normalized, CardioQ against USCOM, to eliminate the systematic error component following calibration. Bland-Altman and trend, concordance and polar analysis, were performed on the grouped data. Cardiac output was indexed (CI) to BSA. Data from 53 patients, aged 59 (26-81) years, scheduled for major surgery were included. Within-individual mean (SD) CI was 3.4 (0.6) L min(-1) m(-2). Correlation was good to excellent in 83 % of cases, R(2) > 0.80, and reasonable in 96 %, R(2) > 0.60. Percentage error was 38 %, and decreased to 14 % with normalization. The estimated 95 % precision for a single Doppler reading was ±10 %. Concordance rate was 96.6 % (confidence intervals 94.7-99.5 %) and above the >92 % threshold for good trending ability. Polar analysis also confirmed good trending ability. The regression line between Doppler methods was offset with a slope of 0.9, thus CardioQ CI readings increased relative to USCOM. Both Doppler methods trended cardiac output reliably. Used in tandem they provide a new standard to assess cardiac output trending.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26315476What 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.