ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2019
Accuracy of non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring: where do we stand?
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07305051 (Comparison of Transhepatic and Subcostal Views for Assessing Inferior Vena Cava Diameter Variation in Cardiac Surgery Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of Transhepatic and Subcostal Views for Assessing Inferior Vena Cava Diameter Variation in Cardiac Surgery Patients
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy and precision of continuous, non-invasive blood pressure devices: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of intraoperative goal-directed therapy on perioperative outcomes in kidney transplantation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Critical care capacity in Africa: postpandemic ICU capacity, service readiness and patient profiles across public and private hospitals in Ethiopia.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Less-Invasive Hemodynamic and Tissue Perfusion Monitoring in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cardioprotective Role of CalhexCell biochemistry and biophysics · 2026Review
- Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients: A Guide for Emergency Physicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Machine learning-enabled estimation of cardiac output from peripheral waveforms is independent of blood pressure measurement location in an in silico population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of Alarm Management Training on Adult ICU Nurses' Knowledge, Behaviour, and Fatigue: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Continuous Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cirrhotic Patients-Friend or Foe?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine learning-based early warning system for hemodynamic deterioration in cardiovascular ICU patients: a bidirectional cross-validation study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Monitor smart, use better: the future of haemodynamic monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024Article
- Machine Learning-Based Cardiac Output Estimation Using Photoplethysmography in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- PiCCO or Cardiac Ultrasound? Which Is Better for Hemodynamic Monitoring in ICU?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- The Usefulness of Microcirculatory Assessment After Cardiac Surgery: Illustrative Case Report.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Review of Advancements in Managing Cardiogenic Shock: From Emergency Care Protocols to Long-Term Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A comparison of invasive arterial blood pressure measurement with oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with sepsis.Journal of anesthesia · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most important variables in assessing hemodynamic status in the intensive care unit (ICU) is the cardiac function and blood pressure. Invasive methods such as pulmonary artery catheter and arterial line allow monitoring of blood pressure and cardiac function accurately and reliably. However, their use is not without drawbacks, especially when the invasive nature of these procedures and complications associated with them are considered. There are several newer methods of noninvasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring available. In this manuscript, we will review these different methods of minimally invasive and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring and will discuss their advantages, drawbacks and limitations.
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.