ArticlePloS one2021
Prognostic value of baseline carotid blood flow in critically ill children with septic shock.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimHemodynamic monitoring and cardiac output (CO) assessment in the ICU have been trending toward less invasive methods. Carotid blood flow (CBF) was suggested as a candidate for CO assessment. The present study aimed to test the value of carotid artery ultrasound analysis in prediction of mortality in pediatric patients with septic shock. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDING: Forty children with septic shock were included in the study. Upon admission, patients were subjected to careful history taking and thorough clinical examination. The consciousness level was assessed by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Laboratory assessment included complete blood count, C-reactive protein, arterial blood gases, serum electrolytes, and liver and kidney function tests. Electrical cardiometry was used to evaluate hemodynamic parameters. Patients were also subjected to transthoracic 2-D echocardiography. CBF was evaluated using GE Vivid S5 ultrasound device through dedicated software. At the end of study, 14 patients (35.0%) died. It was found that survivors had significantly higher CBF when compared non-survivors [median (IQR): 166.0 (150.0-187.3) versus 141.0 (112.8-174.3), p = 0.033]. In addition, it was noted that survivors had longer ICU stay when compared with non-survivors [16.5 (9.8-31.5) versus 6.5 (3.0-19.5) days, p = 0.005]. ROC curve analysis showed that CBF could significantly distinguish survivors from non-survivors [AUC (95% CI): 0.3 (0.11-0.48), p = 0.035] (Fig 2). Univariate logistic regression analysis identified type of shock [OR (95% CI): 28.1 (4.9-162.4), p<0.001], CI [OR (95% CI): 0.6 (0.43-0.84), p = 0.003] and CBF [OR (95% CI): 0.98 (0.96-0.99), p = 0.031]. However, in multivariate analysis, only type of shock significantly predicted mortality.
conclusionsCBF assessment may be a useful prognostic marker in children with septic shock.
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.