SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2023
Reliability of stroke volume or pulse pressure variation as dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Dynamic Measures in Intraoperative Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy of Patients with Morbid Obesity Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.Obesity surgery · 2024Trial
- Pulse pressure variation guided goal-direct fluid therapy decreases postoperative complications in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Trial
- The haemodynamic effects of pneumoperitoneum on pulse pressure variation - a prospective, observational study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Observational
- Dynamic Arterial Elastance as a Predictor of Intraoperative Fluid Responsiveness in Elderly Patient over 70 Years of Age Undergoing Spine Surgery in the Prone Position Under General Anesthesia: A Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Tidal Volume Challenge to Assess Volume Responsiveness with Dynamic Preload Indices During Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness in the operating room : An analysis of intraoperative ventilation framework conditions.Die Anaesthesiologie · 2024Article
- Evolving Perspectives on Esophagectomy Care: Clinical Update.Anesthesiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) in predicting fluid responsiveness during laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. We conducted the present systematic review to summarize the current evidence. We reviewed studies that investigated the reliability of SVV and PPV in laparoscopic surgery. Seven studies were included in the final analysis. Two studies demonstrated that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for SVV was less than 0.8, and five studies reported that the AUROC was > 0.8. The pooled AUROC for SVV and PPV was more than 0.8 with high heterogeneities between the included studies. Most individual studies have suggested that SVV and PPV are sufficiently reliable for predicting fluid responsiveness during laparoscopic surgery. However, the limited number of patients, varied apparatus used to define fluid responsiveness, diverse definitions of fluid responsiveness, and different fluids used to perform fluid challenges in the included studies render firm conclusions about SVV's and PPV's reliability impossible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36399217What 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.