Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26873834›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2016

Understanding the venous-arterial CO

Gustavo A Ospina-Tascón, Glenn Hernández, Maurizio Cecconi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03762005 (Peripheral Perfusion Versus Lactate Targeted Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03762005 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Peripheral Perfusion Versus Lactate Targeted Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock: ANDROMEDA-SHOCK PHYSIOLOGY STUDY

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2018 to 2019Enrolled46ConditionsSeptic Shock, Hyperlactatemia, Peripheral PerfusionArmsCRT guided resuscitation, Lactate guided resuscitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. PScientific reports · 2026
    Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Use of COJournal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  10. P(v-a)COBMJ open · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Effective hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. ΔPCOFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Regional venous-arterial COIntensive care medicine experimental · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Optimal target in septic shock resuscitation.Annals of translational medicine · 2020
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Comparison of the venous-arterial COJournal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Gustavo A Ospina-TascónDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Fundación Valle del Lili-Universidad ICESI, Av. Simón Bolívar Cra. 98, Cali, Colombia. gusospin@gmail.com.
Glenn HernándezDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Maurizio CecconiAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, St George's Hospital and Medical School, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Cardiac OutputAnaerobic ThresholdBlood Gas AnalysisCarbon DioxideHemodynamicsHumansHyperlactatemiaMicrocirculationMitochondriaOxygen ConsumptionPartial PressureCarbon Dioxide

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.