Observational studyJournal of intensive care medicine2020
Performance of a 25% Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility in Detecting Fluid Responsiveness When Assessed by Novice Versus Expert Physician Sonologists.
Observational study in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation of absolute nil-per-oral status with inferior vena cava collapsibility index and post-spinal hypotension in infra-umbilical surgeries: An observational study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Mastering the technique of inferior vena cava ultrasound from transhepatic view in intensive care unit: A practical approach to the ultrasound technique, tips, and pitfalls.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2026Review
- Management of paraquat poisoning in an adolescent with progressive acute kidney injury: a case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Adjunct Techniques in the Assessment of Hypovolemia: A Prospective Pilot Project.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Inferior Vena Caval Measures Do Not Correlate with Carotid Artery Corrected Flow Time Change Measured Using a Wireless Doppler Patch in Healthy Volunteers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonographic Respiratory Variation in the Inferior Vena Cava, Subclavian Vein, Internal Jugular Vein, and Femoral Vein Diameter to Predict Fluid Responsiveness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Ultrasound Assessment of the Inferior Vena Cava for Fluid Responsiveness: Making the Case for Skepticism.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Assessment of Phasic Changes of Vascular Size by Automated Edge Tracking-State of the Art and Clinical Perspectives.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- The POCUS Consult: How Point of Care Ultrasound Helps Guide Medical Decision Making.International journal of general medicine · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence versus expert: a comparison of rapid visual inferior vena cava collapsibility assessment between POCUS experts and a deep learning algorithm.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
- A Clinician's Guide to the Implementation of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Outpatient Practice.Journal of primary care & community healthReview
- Preoperative Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Subclavian Vein and Inferior Vena Cava for Predicting Hypotension Associated with Induction of General Anesthesia.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInferior vena cava collapsibility (cIVC) measured by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a noninvasive means of assessing fluid responsiveness. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the performance of a 25% cIVC cutoff value to detect fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients when assessed with POCUS by novice versus expert physician sonologists.
methodsProspective observational study of spontaneously breathing ICU patients. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a
resultsOf the 85 participants, 44 (52%) were fluid responders. A 25% cIVC cutoff value performed better when assessed by expert sonologists than novice physician sonologists (receiver-operator characteristic curve, ROC = 0.82 [0.74-0.88] vs ROC = 0.69 [0.60-0.77]).
conclusionsA 25% cIVC cutoff value measured by POCUS detects fluid responsiveness. However, the experience of the physician sonologist affects test performance and should be considered when interpreting and clinically using cIVC to direct intravenous fluid resuscitation.
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.