Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29387683›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2017

Monitoring of Tissue Oxygenation: an Everyday Clinical Challenge.

Zsolt Molnar, Marton Nemeth

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

2 authors.

Zsolt MolnarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Marton NemethDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe aim of this article is to study the overview of pathophysiology and clinical application of central venous oxygen saturation monitoring in critically ill patients and during the perioperative period. RECENT

findingsThere are several clinical studies and animal experiments evaluating the effects of goal-directed hemodynamic stabilization on critically ill patients. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses found that advanced hemodynamic endpoints-targeted management has a positive effect on outcome in high-risk surgical patients. As all interventions aim to improve tissue oxygenation, it is of utmost importance to monitor the balance between oxygen delivery and consumption. For this purpose, central venous blood gas analysis provides an easily available tool in the everyday clinical practice. The adequate interpretation of central venous oxygen saturation renders the need of careful evaluation of several physiological and pathophysiological circumstances. When appropriately evaluated, central venous oxygen saturation can be a valuable component of a multimodal individualized approach, in which components of oxygen delivery are put in the context of the patients' individual oxygen consumption. In addition to guide therapy, central venous oxygen saturation may also serve as an early warning sign of inadequate oxygen delivery, which would otherwise remain hidden from the attending physician. SUMMARY: With the incorporation of central venous oxygen saturation in the everyday clinical routine, treatment could be better tailored for the patients' actual needs; hence, it may also improve outcome.

Indexed as

central venous oxygen saturationgoal-directed therapyhemodynamic monitoringoxygen consumptionoxygen debtoxygen deliveryvenous oxygen saturation

Identifiers

PMID29387683
PMCPMC5775968

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.