Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32572502›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2020

[Perioperative pharmacological circulatory support in daily clinical routine].

A Haas, T Schürholz, D A Reuter

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A HaasKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
T SchürholzKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
D A ReuterKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland. daniel.reuter@med.uni-rostock.de.
Universitätsmedizin Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perioperative phases of hypotension are associated with an increase in postoperative complications and organ damage. Whereas some years ago hemodynamic stabilization was primarily carried out by volume supplementation, in recent years the use and dosing of cardiovascular-active substances has significantly increased. But like intravascular volume therapy, also substances with a cardiovascular effect have therapeutic margins, and thus, potential side effects. This review article discusses indications for each cardiovascular-active agent, weighing up advantages and disadvantages. Special attention is paid to the question how to administrate them: central venous catheter vs. peripheral indwelling venous cannula. The authors come to the conclusion that it is not a question of whether it is principally allowed to apply cardiovascular-active drugs via peripheral veins but more importantly, what should be taken into consideration if a peripheral venous access is used. This article provides concise recommendations.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular AgentsCatheterization, Central VenousCentral Venous CathetersHypotensionHemodynamicsHumansCardiovascular AgentsHypotensionInotropic agentsPhosphodiesterase 3 inhibitorsVascular accessVasopressor agents

Identifiers

PMID32572502
OpenAlexW3036181721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.