ArticleThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2023
Superiority of compensatory reserve measurement compared with the Shock index for early and accurate detection of reduced central blood volume status.
Article in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular reserve as an integrative physiological construct: Current evidence, emerging technologies and future directions.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2026Review
- Real-Time Comparison of Machine Learning-Enabled Devices for Measuring Compensatory Reserve Status.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Visual scoring of photoplethysmography morphology for risk stratification in hemorrhagic shock: a prospective observational study.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock index (SI) equals the ratio of heart rate (HR) to systolic blood pressure (SBP) with clinical evidence that it is more sensitive for trauma patient status assessment and prediction of outcome compared with either HR or SBP alone. We used lower body negative pressure (LBNP) as a human model of central hypovolemia and compensatory reserve measurement (CRM) validated for accurate tracking of reduced central blood volume to test the hypotheses that SI: (1) presents a late signal of central blood volume status; (2) displays poor sensitivity and specificity for predicting the onset of hemodynamic decompensation; and (3) cannot identify individuals at greatest risk for the onset of circulatory shock.
methodsWe measured HR, SBP, and CRM in 172 human subjects (19-55 years) during progressive LBNP designed to determine tolerance to central hypovolemia as a model of hemorrhage. Subjects were subsequently divided into those with high tolerance (HT) (n = 118) and low tolerance (LT) (n = 54) based on completion of 60 mm Hg LBNP. The time course relationship between SI and CRM was determined and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for sensitivity and specificity of CRM and SI to predict hemodynamic decompensation using clinically defined thresholds of 40% for CRM and 0.9 for SI.
resultsThe time and level of LBNP required to reach a SI = 0.9 (~60 mm Hg LBNP) was significantly greater ( p < 0.001) compared with CRM that reached 40% at ~40 mm Hg LBNP. Shock index did not differ between HT and LT subjects at 45 mm Hg LBNP levels. ROC AUC for CRM was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.94-0.97) compared with 0.91 (0.89-0.94) for SI ( p = 0.0002).
conclusionDespite high sensitivity and specificity, SI delays time to detect reductions in central blood volume with failure to distinguish individuals with varying tolerances to central hypovolemia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level III.
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.