Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646661›Full record

ReviewCureus2021

Intraoperative Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring and the Potential Pitfalls of Invasively Measured Systolic Blood Pressure.

Sean Lam, Hong Liu, Zhongping Jian, Jos Settels, Christian Bohringer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Challenges and pitfalls of cuff oscillometric blood pressure measurement.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025
    Article
  6. Invasive and non-invasive monitoring in the ICU.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
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.

Sean LamAnesthesiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, USA.
Hong LiuAnesthesiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, USA.
Zhongping JianBioengineering, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA.
Jos SettelsBioengineering, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA.
Christian BohringerAnesthesiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive intraarterial blood pressure measurement is currently the gold standard for intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring but accurate systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurement is difficult in everyday clinical practice, mostly because of problems with hyper-resonance or damping within the measurement system, which can lead to erroneous treatment decisions if these phenomena are not recognized. A hyper-resonant blood pressure trace significantly overestimates true systolic blood pressure while underestimating the diastolic pressure. Invasively measured systolic blood pressure is also significantly more affected than mean blood pressure by the site of measurement within the arterial system. Patients in the intraoperative period should be treated based on the invasively measured mean blood pressure rather than the systolic blood pressure. In this review, we discuss the pros/cons, mechanisms of invasive blood pressure measurements, and the interpretation of the invasively measured systolic blood pressure value.

Indexed as

dampinghemodynamicshyperresonanceinvasive intraarterial blood pressuremonitoring

Identifiers

PMID34646661
PMCPMC8483407

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.