ArticlePloS one2024
The development, feasibility and credibility of intra-abdominal pressure measurement techniques: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of different ventilation modes on intra-abdominal pressure and postoperative nausea and vomiting during anesthesia: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Trial
- Microwave Radar Sensing for Non-Invasive Intra-Abdominal Pressure Monitoring: A Simulation-Based Analysis with Phantom Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ultrasonic markers for screening intra-abdominal hypertension in patients with pancreatic diseases.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Measurement and Interpretation of Intra-Abdominal Pressure During Physical Activity: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- A nomogram for predicting postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension in pediatric patients following liver transplantation: a prospective observational study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Behaviour and cognition of adult critical care nurses regarding intra-abdominal pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Awareness, knowledge and practices related to intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among intensive care providers: a systematic scoping review.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Development and feasibility study of a piezoresistive pressure sensor-based automated system for monitoring and controlling gastric pressure in endoscopy.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Review
- Abdominal Compartment Syndrome Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Challenging Case.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
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
aimTo provide a comprehensive overview on emerging direct and alternative methods for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement techniques.
methodsThis was a scoping review study following Arksey and Malley's framework. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus and ProQuest databases were searched, and we only considered studies published from 2000 as we have extended the data from two previous reviews. Original studies that reported on the development, feasibility and credibility of IAP measurement techniques were included.
resultsForty-two of 9954 screened articles were included. IAP measurement techniques include three major categories: direct, indirect and less invasive measurement techniques. Agreement analyses were performed in most studies, and some explored the safety, time expenditure and reproducibility of IAP measurement techniques.
conclusionsClinical data assessing the validation of new IAP measurement techniques or the reliability of established measurement techniques remain lacking. Considering the cost and invasiveness, direct measurement is not recommended as a routine method for IAP measurement and should be preserved for critically ill patients where standard techniques are contraindicated or could be inaccurate. The measurement accuracy, reliability and sensitivity of the transrectal and transfemoral vein methods remain insufficient and cannot be recommended as surrogate IAP measures. Transvesical measurement is the most widely used method, which is the potentially most easy applicable technique and can be used as a reliable method for continuous and intermittent IAP measurement. Wireless transvaginal method facilitates the quantitative IAP measurement during exercise and activity, which laying the foundations for monitoring IAP outside of the clinic environment, but the accuracy of this technique in measuring absolute IAP cannot be determined at present. Less invasive technology will become a new trend to measure IAP and has substantial potential to replace traditional IAP measurement technologies, but further validation and standardization are still needed. Medical professionals should choose appropriate measurement tools based on the advantages and disadvantages of each IAP technique in combination with assessing specific clinical situations.
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.