Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34617816›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism2022

Reliability and validity of the mean flow index (Mx) for assessing cerebral autoregulation in humans: A systematic review of the methodology.

Markus Harboe Olsen, Christian Gunge Riberholt, Jesper Mehlsen, Ronan Mg Berg, Kirsten Møller

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cerebral autoregulation in pediatric and neonatal intensive care: A scoping review.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Diagnostic and prognostic performance of Mxa and transfer function analysis-based dynamic cerebral autoregulation metrics.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2022
    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.

Markus Harboe OlsenDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology, 53146Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0981-0723
Christian Gunge RiberholtDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology, 53146Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesper MehlsenSurgical Pathophysiology Unit, 53146Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ronan Mg BergDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kirsten MøllerDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology, 53146Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cerebral autoregulation is a complex mechanism that serves to keep cerebral blood flow relatively constant within a wide range of cerebral perfusion pressures. The mean flow index (Mx) is one of several methods to assess dynamic cerebral autoregulation, but its reliability and validity have never been assessed systematically. The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the methodology, reliability and validity of Mx.Based on 128 studies, we found inconsistency in the pre-processing of the recordings and the methods for calculation of Mx. The reliability in terms of repeatability and reproducibility ranged from poor to excellent, with optimal repeatability when comparing overlapping recordings. The discriminatory ability varied depending on the patient populations; in general, those with acute brain injury exhibited a higher Mx than healthy volunteers. The prognostic ability in terms of functional outcome and mortality ranged from chance result to moderate accuracy.Since the methodology was inconsistent between studies, resulting in varying reliability and validity estimates, the results were difficult to compare. The optimal method for deriving Mx is currently unknown.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular CirculationHomeostasisBlood Flow VelocityBrain InjuriesHumansautoregulationconfoundersMean flow indexmethodologyMxreliabilitysystematic reviewvalidity

Identifiers

PMID34617816
PMCPMC8721771

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.