Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29230392›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2017

Non-Invasive Monitoring of Cardiac Output in Critical Care Medicine.

Lee S Nguyen, Pierre Squara

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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.

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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Does the thoracic fluid content reflect lung water and cardiac preload?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Individualized Hemodynamic Management in Sepsis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  18. Electrocardiometry for Hemodynamic Categorization and Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Pilot Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

2 authors.

Lee S NguyenCritical Care Medicine Department, CMC Ambroise Paré, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Pierre SquaraCritical Care Medicine Department, CMC Ambroise Paré, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critically ill patients require close hemodynamic monitoring to titrate treatment on a regular basis. It allows administering fluid with parsimony and adjusting inotropes and vasoactive drugs when necessary. Although invasive monitoring is considered as the reference method, non-invasive monitoring presents the obvious advantage of being associated with fewer complications, at the expanse of accuracy, precision, and step-response change. A great many methods and devices are now used over the world, and this article focuses on several of them, providing with a brief review of related underlying physical principles and validation articles analysis. Reviewed methods include electrical bioimpedance and bioreactance, respiratory-derived cardiac output (CO) monitoring technique, pulse wave transit time, ultrasound CO monitoring, multimodal algorithmic estimation, and inductance thoracocardiography. Quality criteria with which devices were reviewed included: accuracy (closeness of agreement between a measurement value and a true value of the measured), precision (closeness of agreement between replicate measurements on the same or similar objects under specified conditions), and step response change (delay between physiological change and its indication). Our conclusion is that the offer of non-invasive monitoring has improved in the past few years, even though further developments are needed to provide clinicians with sufficiently accurate devices for routine use, as alternative to invasive monitoring devices.

Indexed as

bioreactancecardiac outputcritical care medicinehemodynamicsnon-invasive monitoring

Identifiers

PMID29230392
PMCPMC5715400

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.