SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2018
Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preoperative patient risk factors for intraoperative hypotension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Inferior vena cava collapsibility index as a predictor of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia in hypertensive patients.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Respiratory variation in the internal jugular vein does not predict fluid responsiveness in the prone position during adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a prospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- The increase in cardiac output induced by a decrease in positive end-expiratory pressure reliably detects volume responsiveness: the PEEP-test study.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Comparative performance of mitral E/e' versus inferior vena cava variability for predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated adults with shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Treatment Response Phenotyping Informed by Patient Physiologic Characteristics Could Drive Precision Critical Care Through Augmented Intelligence: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
- Ultrasound of the inferior vena cava for fluid therapy decisions: Strengths, limitations, and an integrated approach.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Renal congestion syndrome in critically ill patients: a neglected mechanism of acute kidney injury - A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- The Relationship between Intraoperative Respiratory Variability of the Inferior Vena Cava Diameter on Transesophageal Echocardiography and Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness via Central Venous Ultrasound Measurement: A Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Predictive value of trendelenburg position and carotid ultrasound for fluid responsiveness in patients on VV-ECMO with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Easy method to determine fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: end-tidal CO2 - a prospective observational study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2024Observational
- Inferior vena cava ultrasound and other techniques for assessment of intravascular and extravascular volume: an update.Clinical kidney journal · 2023Review
- Article
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022Review
- Ultrasound Assessment of the Inferior Vena Cava for Fluid Responsiveness: Making the Case for Skepticism.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- [Perioperative optimization using hemodynamically focused echocardiography in high-risk patients-A practice guide].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Review
- Perioperative echocardiography-guided hemodynamic therapy in high-risk patients: a practical expert approach of hemodynamically focused echocardiography.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Review
- Trendelenburg maneuver predicts fluid responsiveness in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Annals of intensive care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated.
resultsOverall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
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.