ArticleHerz2024
Accuracy of VO
Article in Herz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of hemodynamic parameters measured by bioimpedance cardiography at different intensities during incremental exercise testing.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Improved Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressures through Left Atrial Volumetry-A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvasive cardiac output (CO) is measured with the thermodilution (TD) or the indirect Fick method (iFM) in right heart catheterization (RHC). The iFM estimates CO using approximation formulas for oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O
methodsThis retrospective study included 188 patients aged 63 ± 14 years (30% women) receiving both CMR and RHC. The CO was measured with TD or with the iFM using the formulas by Krakau, LaFarge, Dehmer, and Bergstra for [Formula: see text]O2 estimation (iFM-K/-L/-D/-B). Percentage errors were calculated as twice the standard deviation of the difference between two CO methods divided by their means; a cut-off of < 30% was regarded as acceptable. The iFM and TD-derived CO ratio was built, and deviations > 20% were counted. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of a deviation of > 20%.
resultsThe TD-derived CO (5.5 ± 1.7 L/min) was significantly different from all iFM (K: 4.8 ± 1.6, L: 4.3 ± 1.6; D: 4.8 ± 1.5 L/min; B: 5.4 ± 1.8 L/min all p < 0.05). The iFM-K-CO differed from all methods (p < 0.001) except iFM‑D (p = 0.19). Percentage errors between TD-CO and iFM-K/-L/-D/-B were all beyond the acceptance limit (44/45/44/43%), while percentage errors between iFM‑K and other iFM were all < 16%. None of the parameters measured in CMR was predictive of a discrepancy of > 20% between both methods.
conclusionThe Krakau formula was comparable to other iFM in estimating CO levels, but none showed satisfactory agreement with the TD method. Improved derivation cohorts for [Formula: see text]O
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.