Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31581196›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yun Zhang, Yan Wang, Jing Shi, Zhiqiang Hua, Jinyu Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yun ZhangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
Yan WangEducation Department, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
Jing ShiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
Zhiqiang HuaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
Jinyu XuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7313-5502
Wuxi People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyThermodilutionCardiac OutputEchocardiography, DopplerHumansPublication BiasRegression AnalysisRisk

Identifiers

PMID31581196
PMCPMC6776392
OpenAlexW2978020580

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.