Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38557791›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2024

Comparison of Differences in Cohort (Forward) and Case Control (Backward) Methodologic Approaches for Validation of the Hypotension Prediction Index.

Simon J Davies, Daniel I Sessler, Zhongping Jian, Neal W Fleming, Monty Mythen, Kamal Maheshwari, Denise P Veelo, Alexander P J Vlaar, Jos Settels, Thomas Scheeren and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Accuracy of Quantifying Hypotension During Surgery Using Physiological Sensor Data.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What is new in cardiac anesthesia in 2024?Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Forecasting intraoperative hypotension during hepatobiliary surgery.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Simon J DaviesDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom; and Centre for Health and Population Science, Hull York Medical School, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2786-6237
Daniel I SesslerDepartment of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Zhongping JianEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California.
Neal W FlemingUniversity of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California.
Monty MythenEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California; and University College London/University College London Hospital, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Kamal MaheshwariDepartment of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Denise P VeeloDepartments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexander P J VlaarDepartments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jos SettelsEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California.
Thomas ScheerenEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California; and Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B J P van der SterDepartments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael SanderDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Maxime CannessonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, UCLA, California.
Feras HatibEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California.

Funding

Personalized Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection of Postoperative Failure to RescueR01EB035028 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Maxime Cannesson · 2023 to 2026
$2.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB035028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Hypotension Prediction Index (the index) software is a machine learning algorithm that detects physiologic changes that may lead to hypotension. The original validation used a case control (backward) analysis that has been suggested to be biased. This study therefore conducted a cohort (forward) analysis and compared this to the original validation technique.

methodsA retrospective analysis of data from previously reported studies was conducted. All data were analyzed identically with two different methodologies, and receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Both backward and forward analyses were performed to examine differences in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the Hypotension Prediction Index and other hemodynamic variables to predict a mean arterial pressure (MAP) less than 65 mmHg for at least 1 min 5, 10, and 15 min in advance.

resultsThe analysis included 2,022 patients, yielding 4,152,124 measurements taken at 20-s intervals. The area under the curve for the index predicting hypotension analyzed by backward and forward methodologies respectively was 0.957 (95% CI, 0.947 to 0.964) versus 0.923 (95% CI, 0.912 to 0.933) 5 min in advance, 0.933 (95% CI, 0.924 to 0.942) versus 0.923 (95% CI, 0.911 to 0.933) 10 min in advance, and 0.929 (95% CI, 0.918 to 0.938) versus 0.926 (95% CI, 0.914 to 0.937) 15 min in advance. No variable other than MAP had an area under the curve greater than 0.7. The areas under the curve using forward analysis for MAP predicting hypotension 5, 10, and 15 min in advance were 0.932 (95% CI, 0.920 to 0.940), 0.929 (95% CI, 0.918 to 0.938), and 0.932 (95% CI, 0.921 to 0.940), respectively. The R2 for the variation in the index due to MAP was 0.77.

conclusionsUsing an updated methodology, the study found that the utility of the Hypotension Prediction Index to predict future hypotensive events is high, with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve similar to that of the original validation method. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

Indexed as

HypotensionAlgorithmsCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID38557791
PMCPMC11323758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.