Observational studyTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
Comparison of inferior vena cava collapsibility, distensibility, and delta indices at different positive pressure supports and prediction values of indices for intravascular volume status
Observational study in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Value of the Respiratory Variation in Inferior Vena Cava Diameter for Ventilated Children With Septic Shock.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Comparison of vena cava distensibility index and pulse pressure variation for the evaluation of intravascular volume in critically ill children.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: To compare the inferior vena cava (IVC) indices, identify their variation rates at positive pressure values and accurate predictive values for the volume status in patients with spontaneous respiration receiving different positive pressure support. Materials and methods: The study included 100 patients who were divided into 4 pressure support groups, according to the different pressure supports received, and 3 volume groups according to their CVP values. Ultrasonography was applied to all of the patients to define their IVC diameters at different pressure supports. Dynamic parameters were derived from the ultrasonographic assessment of the IVC diameter [collapsibility (CI-IVC), distensibility (dIVC), and delta (ΔIVC) indices]. Results: There were significant differences between the 3 indices (CI-IVC, dIVC, and ΔIVC) according to the pressure groups [(10/5), (10/0), (0/5), (t tube 0/0)]. The median value for the dIVC percentages was ≤18% for all of the positive pressure support hypervolemic groups, apart from the hypervolemic t tube group (19%). For the hypervolemic groups, the best estimation according to the cut-off value appeared to be for the dIVC. Values with the highest sensitivity for differentiation of the hypovolemic individuals were calculated with the dIVC. Conclusion: The dIVC had a more accurate predictive role in predicting the volume status when compared with the CI-IVC and ΔIVC, and may be used reliably with positive pressure supports.
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.