Interpretation of venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference in the resuscitation of septic shock patients.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Central venous-to-arterial COCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
   Article
2. Resuscitation incoherence and dynamic circulation-perfusion coupling in circulatory shock.Chinese medical journal · 2019
   Article
3. Correlation of central venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference to arterial-central venous oxygen difference ratio to lactate clearance and prognosis in patients with septic shock: A prospective observational cohort study.International journal of critical illness and injury science
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as