ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019
Subjective right ventricle assessment by echo qualified intensive care specialists: assessing agreement with objective measures.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Response to Dobutamine in Septic Shock With Myocardial Dysfunction: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Prevalence and prognosis impact of right ventricular injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Can Machine Learning Personalize Cardiovascular Therapy in Sepsis?Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- Mitral regurgitation in the critically ill: the devil is in the detail.Annals of intensive care · 2023Review
- The interplay between left ventricular diastolic and right ventricular dysfunction: challenges in the interpretation of critical care echocardiography studies.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound for critically-ill patients: A mini-review of key diagnostic features and protocols.World journal of critical care medicine · 2022Review
- Critical Care Echocardiography: A Primer for the Nephrologist.Advances in chronic kidney disease · 2021Review
- Assessment of Right Ventricular Function With CT and Echocardiography in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- The PRICES statement: an ESICM expert consensus on methodology for conducting and reporting critical care echocardiography research studies.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Subcostal TAPSE: a retrospective analysis of a novel right ventricle function assessment method from the subcostal position in patients with sepsis.The ultrasound journal · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Subjective Assessment of Right Heart Size and Function Using Standard 2D-Echocardiographic Recordings in Horses With and Without Pulmonary Hypertension.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRight ventricle (RV) size and function assessment by echocardiography (echo) is a standard tool in the ICU. Frequently subjective assessment is performed, and guidelines suggest its utility in adequately trained clinicians. We aimed to compare subjective (visual) assessment of RV size and function by ICU physicians, with advanced qualifications in echocardiography, vs objective measurements.
methodsICU specialists with a qualification in advanced echocardiography reviewed 2D echo clips from critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation with PaO
resultsFifty-two clinicians reviewed 2D images from 80 patients. Fair agreement was seen with objective measures vs binary assessment of RV size (RV EDA 0.26 [p < 0.001], RV dimensions 0.29 [p = 0.06]) and function (RV free wall strain 0.27 [p < 0.001], TAPSE 0.27 [p < 0.001], S' 0.29 [p < 0.001], FAC 0.31 [p = 0.16]). However, ordinal data analysis showed poor agreement with RV dimensions (0.11 [p = 0.06]) and RV free wall strain (0.14 [p = 0.16]). If one-step disagreement was allowed, agreement was good (RV dimensions 0.6 [p = 0.06], RV free wall strain 0.6 [p = 0.16]). Significant overestimation of severity of abnormalities was seen with subjective assessment vs RV EDA, TAPSE, S' and fractional area change.
conclusionSubjective (visual) assessment of RV size and function, by ICU specialists trained in advanced echo, can be fairly reliable for the initial exclusion of significant RV pathology. It seems prudent to avoid subjective RV assessment in isolation.
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.