ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2020
Comparison the accuracy and trending ability of cardiac index measured by the fourth- generation of FloTrac with the PiCCO device in septic shock patients
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of minimally invasive pulse wave analysis with pulmonary artery and transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurements in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Contemporary Review of Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critical Care Setting.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Application and significance of PiCCO monitoring technique combined with troponin I detection in fluid resuscitation of elderly patients with septic myocardial dysfunction.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: FloTrac/Vigileo is a noncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis for cardiac index (CI) monitoring. The aim of our study was to compare the CI measured by the 4th generation of FloTrac with PiCCO in septic shock patients. Materials and methods: We simultaneously measured the CI using FloTrac (CIv) and compared it with the CI derived from transpulmonary thermodilution (CItd) as well as the pulse contour-derived CI using PiCCO (CIp). Results: Thirty-one septic shock patients were included. The CIv correlated with CItd (r = 0.62, P < 0.0001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.14, and the limits of agreement were –1.62–1.91 L/min/m2 with a percentage error of 47.4%. However, the concordance rate between CIv and CItd was 93.6%. The comparison of CIv with CIp (n = 352 paired measurements) revealed a bias of -0.16, and the limits of agreement were –1.45–1.79 L/min/m2 with a percentage error of 44.8%. The overall correlation coefficient between CIv and CIp was 0.63 (P < 0.0001), and the concordance rate was 85.4%. Conclusion: The 4th generation of FloTrac has not acceptable agreement to assess CI; however, it has the ability to tracked changes of CI, when compared with the transpulmonary thermodilution method by PiCCO.
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.