Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31797199›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020

Multicenter comparison of three intraoperative hemoglobin trend monitoring methods.

Richard L Applegate Ii, Patricia M Applegate, Maxime Cannesson, Prith Peiris, Beth L Ladlie, Klaus Torp

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Non-invasive monitoring is coming the full circle, making our patients safer!Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Richard L Applegate IiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA. rapplegate@ucdavis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1454-4549
Patricia M ApplegateDepartment of Cardiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Maxime CannessonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Prith PeirisDepartment of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Beth L LadlieDepartment of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Klaus TorpDepartment of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USLoma Linda University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transfusion decisions are guided by clinical factors and measured hemoglobin (Hb). Time required for blood sampling and analysis may cause Hb measurement to lag clinical conditions, thus continuous intraoperative Hb trend monitoring may provide useful information. This multicenter study was designed to compare three methods of determining intraoperative Hb changes (trend accuracy) to laboratory determined Hb changes. Adult surgical patients with planned arterial catheterization were studied. With each blood gas analysis performed, pulse cooximetry hemoglobin (SpHb) was recorded, and arterial blood Hb was measured by hematology (tHb), arterial blood gas cooximetry (ABGHb), and point of care (aHQHb) analyzers. Hb change was calculated and trend accuracy assessed by modified Bland-Altman analysis. Secondary measures included Hb measurement change direction agreement. Trend accuracy mean bias (95% limits of agreement; g/dl) for SpHb was 0.10 (- 1.14 to 1.35); for ABGHb was - 0.02 (- 1.06 to 1.02); and for aHQHb was 0.003 (- 0.95 to 0.95). Changes more than ± 0.5 g/dl agreed with tHb changes more than ± 0.25 g/dl in 94.2% (88.9-97.0%) SpHb changes, 98.9% (96.1-99.7%) ABGHb changes and 99.0% (96.4-99.7%) aHQHb changes. Sequential changes in SpHb, ABGHb and aHQHb exceeding ± 0.5 g/dl have similar agreement to the direction but not necessarily the magnitude of sequential tHb change. While Hb blood tests should continue to be used to inform transfusion decisions, intraoperative continuous noninvasive SpHb decreases more than - 0.5 g/dl could be a good indicator of the need to measure tHb.

Indexed as

Monitoring, IntraoperativeOximetryAdultBlood TransfusionHemoglobinometryHemoglobinsHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsHemoglobinsHemoglobinIntraoperative monitoringNoninvasive measurementPoint of care tests

Identifiers

PMID31797199
PMCPMC7447626
OpenAlexW2993021186

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.