Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022
Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor provides effective non-invasive bedside measurements of neonatal cardiac output.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of early postnatal hemodynamics in neonates born at high-altitude or low-altitude using USCOM: a pilot study.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.La Tunisie medicale · 2024Observational
- [Value of functional echocardiographic parameters in predicting refractory septic shock in neonates].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study determined the accuracy and validity for the haemodynamic parameters of haemodynamically stable neonates after postnatal circulatory adaptation using the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) in comparison with echocardiography. We conducted a prospective, observational study of neonates born at 23-41 weeks of gestation. They all underwent both echocardiography and USCOM assessments for comparison purposes. The 127 neonates were examined at the median of postmenstrual age of 35 weeks and there was a very high correlation between the cardiac output measurements provided by both methods. The mean difference in cardiac output was - 12 ± 25 ml/kg/min, with percentage error of 8.3 ± 6.9%. A larger bias was observed in cases with higher left ventricular output. Bland-Altman analysis confirmed no significant bias, with acceptable limits of agreement between these two methods. There was a very good correlation between the USCOM and echocardiographic methods when we used them to measure cardiac output in neonates.
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.