ReviewCurrent anesthesiology reports2017
Cardiac Output Monitoring: Validation Studies-how Results Should be Presented.
Review in Current anesthesiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A recommendation for the use of electrical biosensing technology in neonatology.Pediatric research · 2025Guideline
- A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance of peripheral arterial tonometry studies.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Non-invasive and invasive measurement of skeletal muscular oxygenation during isolated limb perfusion.Perfusion · 2023Trial
- Standardized synchronization and validation pipeline for physiological biomarkers across multiple devices.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of a deep learning algorithm for intraoperative arterial pressure-based stroke volume index estimation in children: a single-center retrospective study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Not Every Dip Matters: Cerebral Oxygenation Variability and Behavioral Outcomes in Children.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Cardiac Output Method Comparison Studies (COMPARE) Statement.Anesthesiology · 2025Review
- Machine learning-enabled estimation of cardiac output from peripheral waveforms is independent of blood pressure measurement location in an in silico population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of In-Ear and Fingertip-Based Photoplethysmography Sensors for Measuring Cardiac Vagal Tone Relevant Heart Rate Variability Parameters.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A comparison of hemodynamic measurement methods during orthotopic liver transplantation: evaluating agreement and trending ability of PiCCO versus pulmonary artery catheter techniques.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- A multimodal stacked ensemble model for cardiac output prediction utilizing cardiorespiratory interactions during general anesthesia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Could Impedance Cardiography be a Non-Invasive Alternative Method of Measuring Cardiac Output in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension?Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Exploring the Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Echocardiography-Preliminary Results from the First Pediatric Study Using AI Software Developed for Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Accuracy of hemodynamic parameters derived by GE E-PiCCO in comparison with PiCCO® in patients admitted to the intensive care unit.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Validation of a Phosphorus Food Frequency Questionnaire in Patients with Kidney Failure Undertaking Dialysis.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Automatic Prediction of Paediatric Cardiac Output From Echocardiograms Using Deep Learning Models.CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease · 2023Article
- Integral assessment of gas exchange during veno-arterial ECMO: accuracy and precision of a modified Fick principle in a porcine model.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2023Article
- A Meta-Analysis of Sampled Maximal Aerobic Capacity Data for Boys Aged 11 Years Old or Less Obtained by Cycle Ergometry.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Predicting VOFrontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- An Effective Method of Detecting Characteristic Points of Impedance Cardiogram Verified in the Clinical Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
purpose of reviewCardiac output monitors can be assessed by a variety of techniques, but a common principle is quantifying agreement between a reference standard and new monitor. The current standard analysis technique is a Bland-Altman plot. The Bland-Altman plot evaluates bias between mean differences of cardiac output, from which an agreement interval is derived. These limits are, however, statistical limits of agreement and the clinical acceptability will depend upon context and application. This article provides suggestions for understanding and presenting the results of cardiac output validation, using standard metrology alongside proposals for criteria used to accept new techniques. RECENT
findingsConfusion about the appropriate way to report "precision" in method comparison studies stem from a lack of clarity on how single or repeated measurements should be interpreted. During serial measurements of cardiac output the true value changes, thus measurement should be considered as serial rather than repeated. Method agreement based upon precision achieved by cardiac output monitors needs to consider each method's general variability around true values obtained and this data should be generated and presented as part of each study design. SUMMARY: Studies should report serial measurements from two techniques for cardiac output monitoring. Results of similar techniques from other studies may not always be transferred and compared. Bias and intervals of agreement should be presented as Bland-Altman plots with dynamic cardiac output trends in polar plots. Percentage error should be calculated to allow appropriate comparison of techniques for study populations with different expected cardiac output values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.