ArticlePloS one2024
Effect of systemic vascular resistance on the agreement between stroke volume by non-invasive pulse wave analysis and Doppler ultrasound in healthy volunteers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke volume can be estimated beat-to-beat and non-invasively by pulse wave analysis (PWA). However, its reliability has been questioned during marked alterations in systemic vascular resistance (SVR). We studied the effect of SVR on the agreement between stroke volume by PWA and Doppler ultrasound during reductions in stroke volume in healthy volunteers.
methodsIn a previous study we simultaneously measured stroke volume by PWA (SVPWA) and suprasternal Doppler ultrasound (SVUS). We exposed 16 healthy volunteers to lower body negative pressure (LBNP) to reduce stroke volume in combination with isometric hand grip to elevate SVR. LBNP was increased by 20 mmHg every 6 minutes from 0 to 80 mmHg, or until hemodynamic decompensation. The agreement between SVPWA and SVUS was examined using Bland-Altman analysis with mixed regression. Within-subject limits of agreement (LOA) was calculated from the residual standard deviation. SVRUS was calculated from SVUS. We allowed for a sloped bias line by introducing the mean of the methods and SVRUS as explanatory variables to examine whether the agreement was dependent on the magnitude of stroke volume and SVRUS.
resultsBias ± limits of agreement (LOA) was 27.0 ± 30.1 mL. The within-subject LOA was ±11.1 mL. The within-subject percentage error was 14.6%. The difference between methods decreased with higher means of the methods (-0.15 mL/mL, confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to -0.11, P<0.001). The difference between methods increased with higher SVRUS (0.60 mL/mmHg × min × L-1, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.72, P<0.001).
conclusionPWA overestimated stroke volume compared to Doppler ultrasound during reductions in stroke volume and elevated SVR in healthy volunteers. The agreement between SVPWA and SVUS decreased during increases in SVR. This is relevant in settings where a high level of reliability is required.
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.