Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017
A head to head evaluation of 8 biochemical scanning tools for unmeasured ions.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of the strong-ion gap: Dependency on albumin electrical charge and fluid electroneutrality.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of a modified Story approach to traditional evaluation of acid-base disturbances in patients with shock: a cohort study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Article
- A simplified quantitative acid-base approach for patients with acute respiratory diseases.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Observational
- Reducing complexity in acid-base diagnosis - how far should we go?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Article
- Comparison of a new simplified acid-base tool to the original Stewart-Figge approach: a study on cardiac surgical patients.Journal of anesthesia · 2018Article
- Traditional approach versus Stewart approach for acid-base disorders: Inconsistent evidence.SAGE open medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 8 biochemical scanning tools in signalling the presence of unmeasured anions. We used blood gas and biochemical data from 15 patients during and after cardio-pulmonary bypass. Sampling time-points were pre-bypass (T1), 2 min post equilibration with priming fluid containing acetate and gluconate anions (T2), late bypass (T3) and 4 h after surgery (T4). We calculated the anion gap (AG), albumin-corrected anion gap (AGc), whole blood base excess (BE) gap, plasma BE gap, standard BE gap and the strong ion gap (SIG), plus 2 new indices-the unmeasured ion index (UIX) and unmeasured plasma anions according to the interstitial, plasma and erythrocyte acid-base model (IPEua). Total measured plasma concentrations of acetate and gluconate [XA] were proxies for unmeasured plasma anions. [XA] values (mmol/L) were 1.41 (0.87) at T1, 11.73 (3.28) at T2, 4.80 (1.49) at T3 and 1.36 (0.73) at T4. Corresponding [albumin] values (g/L) were 32.3 (2.0), 19.8 (2.6), 21.3 (2.5) and 29.1 (2.3) respectively. Only the AG failed to increase significantly at T2 in response to a mean [XA] surge of >10 mEq/L. At an [XA] threshold of 6 mEq/L, areas under receiver -operator characteristic curves in rank order were IPEua and UIX (0.88 and 0.87 respectively), SIG (0.81), AGc (0.79), standard BE gap (0.77), plasma BE gap (0.71), BE gap (0.70) and AG (0.59). Similar ranking hierarchies applied to positive and negative predictive values. We conclude that during acute hemodilution UIX and IPEua are superior to the anion gap (with and without albumin correction) and 4 other indices as scanning tools for unmeasured anions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27072989What 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.