Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32690040›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2020

Validation of noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurement by ClearSight System™ during induction of anesthesia for cardiovascular surgery.

Tadashi Tanioku, Akari Yoshida, Yuichi Aratani, Keisuke Fujii, Tomoyuki Kawamata

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Validating cuffless continuous blood pressure monitoring devices.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Midodrine - why don't you just work better?Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tadashi TaniokuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wakayama Medical University School of Medicine, Kimiidera 811-1, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan. ttanioku@wakayama-med.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-5719-6356
Akari YoshidaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wakayama Medical University School of Medicine, Kimiidera 811-1, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan.
Yuichi ArataniDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wakayama Medical University School of Medicine, Kimiidera 811-1, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan.
Keisuke FujiiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wakayama Medical University School of Medicine, Kimiidera 811-1, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan.
Tomoyuki KawamataDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wakayama Medical University School of Medicine, Kimiidera 811-1, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan.
Wakayama Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince blood pressure tends to be unstable during induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, an artery catheter is often inserted before induction to continuously monitor arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia. ClearSight System™ enables noninvasive continuous measurement of beat-to-beat arterial pressure via a single finger cuff without pain using photoplethysmographic technology. If ClearSight System™ can replace intra-arterial pressure measurement, blood pressure could be easily and noninvasively assessed. However, the validity of ClearSight System™ during induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare blood pressure measured by ClearSight System™ with intra-arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia for cardiovascular surgery.

methodsThis study was registered retrospectively. Data during induction of anesthesia for elective cardiovascular surgery were obtained for patients in whom noninvasive arterial pressure was measured by ClearSight System™ (APcs) and invasive radial arterial pressure (APrad) was measured simultaneously. According to the widely used criteria formulated by international standards from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, the acceptable bias and precision for arterial pressure measurements were fixed at < 5 mmHg and 8 mmHg, respectively.

resultsData for 18 patients were analyzed. For 3068 analyzed paired measurements, values of APcs vs APrad bias (precision) were 13.2 (17.5), - 9.1 (7.3) and - 3.9 (7.8) mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively.

conclusionsMean arterial pressure measured by ClearSight System™ could be considered as an alternative for mean radial arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia for elective cardiovascular surgery.

Indexed as

AgedAnesthesiaArterial PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCardiac Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotoplethysmographyRetrospective StudiesCardiovascular surgeryMonitoringNon-invasive arterial pressure

Identifiers

PMID32690040
PMCPMC7370521
OpenAlexW3043450573

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.