Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35372144›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Accuracy and Trending Ability of Electrical Biosensing Technology for Non-invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in Neonates: A Systematic Qualitative Review.

Lizelle Van Wyk, Samir Gupta, John Lawrenson, Willem-Pieter de Boode

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. New Insights into Cardiac Intensive Care.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Lizelle Van WykDivision Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Samir GuptaDepartment of Engineering and Medical Physics, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
John LawrensonPediatric Cardiology Unit, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Willem-Pieter de BoodeDivision of Neonatology, Department of Perinatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Stellenbosch University · ZADurham University · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Electrical biosensing technology (EBT) is an umbrella term for non-invasive technology utilizing the body's fluctuating resistance to electrical current flow to estimate cardiac output. Monitoring cardiac output in neonates may allow for timely recognition of hemodynamic compromise and allow for prompt therapy, thereby mitigating adverse outcomes. For a new technology to be safely used in the clinical environment for therapeutic decisions, it must be proven to be accurate, precise and be able to track temporal changes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and analyze studies that describe the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of EBT to non-invasively monitor Left ventricular cardiac output and/or stroke volume in neonates. Methods: A qualitative systematic review was performed. Studies were identified from PubMed NCBI, SCOPUS, and EBSCOHost up to November 2021, where EBT technologies were analyzed in neonates, in comparison to a reference technology. Outcome measures were bias, limits of agreement, percentage error for agreement studies and data from 4-quadrant and polar plots for trending studies. Effect direction plots were used to present results. Results: Fifteen neonatal studies were identified, 14 for agreement and 1 for trending analysis. Only thoracic electrical biosensing technology (TEBT), with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) as the comparator, studies were available for analyzes. High heterogeneity existed between studies. An equal number of studies showed over- and underestimation of left ventricular output parameters. All studies showed small bias, wide limits of agreement, with most studies having a percentage error >30%. Sub-analyses for respiratory support mode, cardiac anomalies and type of technology showed similar results. The single trending study showed poor concordance, high angular bias, and poor angular concordance. Discussion: Overall, TEBT shows reasonable accuracy, poor precision, and non-interchangeability with TTE. However, high heterogeneity hampered proper analysis. TEBT should be used with caution in the neonatal population for monitoring and determining therapeutic interventions. The use of TEBT trend monitoring has not been sufficiently studied and requires further evaluation in future trials.

Indexed as

accuracy and biasbioimpedancebioreactanceneonatessystematic reviewtrending ability

Identifiers

PMID35372144
PMCPMC8968571
OpenAlexW4220800657

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.