ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2020
Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07253818 (Transthoracic Echocardiography as the Reference for Validating Non-invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring During Passive Leg Raising in Term Pregnancy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Transthoracic Echocardiography as the Reference for Validating Non-invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring During Passive Leg Raising in Term Pregnancy
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early detection of hypovolemia by venous pulse wave velocity and vena cava ultrasound imaging.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Trendelenburg maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in patients under mechanical ventilation with spontaneous breathing: a prospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Effective hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Review
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022Review
- Comparison of subclavian vein to inferior vena cava collapsibility by ultrasound in acute heart failure: A pilot study.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
- Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Review
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
In patients with acute circulatory failure, the primary goal of volume expansion is to increase cardiac output. However, this expected effect is inconstant, so that in many instances, fluid administration does not result in any haemodynamic benefit. In such cases, fluid could only exert some deleterious effects. It is now well demonstrated that excessive fluid administration is harmful, especially during acute respiratory distress syndrome and in sepsis or septic shock. This is the reason why some tests and indices have been developed in order to assess "fluid responsiveness" before deciding to perform volume expansion. While preload markers have been used for many years for this purpose, they have been repeatedly shown to be unreliable, which is mainly related to physiological issues. As alternatives, "dynamic" indices have been introduced. These indices are based upon the changes in cardiac output or stroke volume resulting from various changes in preload conditions, induced by heart-lung interactions, postural manoeuvres or by the infusion of small amounts of fluids. The haemodynamic effects and the reliability of these "dynamic" indices of fluid responsiveness are now well described. From their respective advantages and limitations, it is also possible to describe their clinical interest and the clinical setting in which they are applicable.
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.