ArticleCritical care explorations2023
A Clinical Score for Quantifying Edema in Mechanically Ventilated Children With Congenital Heart Disease in Intensive Care.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardized clinical measurements of edema do not exist.
objectivesTo describe a 19-point clinical edema score (CES), investigate its interobserver agreement, and compare changes between such CES and body weight. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsProspective observational study in a tertiary PICU of mechanically ventilated children with congenital heart disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differences in the median CES between observer groups.
resultsWe studied 61 children, with a median age of 8.0 days (interquartile range, 1.0-14.0 d). A total of 539 CES were performed by three observer groups (medical 1 [reference], medical 2, and bedside nurse) at 0, 24, and 48 hours from enrollment. Overall, there was close agreement between observer groups in mean, median, and upper quartile of CES scores, with least agreement observed in the lower quartile of scores. Across all quartiles of CES, after adjusting for baseline weight, cardiac surgical risk, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, or peritoneal dialysis during the study, observer groups returned similar mean scores (medical 2: 25th centile +0.1 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.5], median +0.6 [95% CI, -0.4 to 1.5], 75th centile +0.1 [95% CI, -1.1 to 1.4] and nurse: 25th centile +0.5 [95% CI, 0.0-0.9], median +0.7 [95% CI, 0.0-1.5], 75th centile -0.2 [95% CI, -1.3 to 1.0]) Within a multivariable mixed-effects linear regression model, including adjustment for baseline CES, each 1 point increase in CES was associated with a 12.1 grams (95% CI, 3.2-21 grams) increase in body weight. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In mechanically ventilated children with congenital heart disease, three groups of observers tended to agree when assessing overall edema using an ordinal clinical score assessed in six body regions, with agreement least at low edema scores. An increase in CES was associated with an increase in body weight, suggesting some validity for quantifying edema. Further exploration of the CES as a rapid clinical tool is indicated.
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.