ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Comparison of invasive blood pressure monitoring vs. non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in critically ill children receiving vasoactive agents-a prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving peripheral arterial catheter placement in critically ill children: a pre-post quality improvement study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
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
Objective: The primary aim of this study was to compare non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement using the automated oscillometric method with invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurement using peripheral arterial line insertion in critically ill children receiving vasoactive agents. Design: Single-centre, prospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary care 15 bedded Pediatric ICU in Urban Indian city. Subjects: All critically ill children between the ages of 1 month to 16 years with shock on vasoactive medications and with IBP monitoring. Results: Forty children with 1,072 paired BP measurements were incorporated in the final analysis. Among all normotensive children (Total number of paired measurements = 623) receiving vasoactive agents, Bland-Altman analysis revealed an acceptable agreement between Invasive mean blood pressure (MBP) and non-invasive MBP with a bias of -2.10 mmHg (SD 11.35). The 95% limits of agreement were from -24.34 to 20.14 mmHg. In children with hypotension (Total number of paired measurements = 449), Bland-Altman analysis showed disagreement between Invasive MBP and non-invasive MBP i.e., a bias of -8.44 mmHg (SD 9.62). The 95% limits of agreement were from -27.29 to 10.41 mmHg. Conclusion: A limited agreement exists between invasive blood pressure (IBP) and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements in critically ill children requiring vasoactive agents. This discrepancy can lead to either an underestimation or an overestimation of blood pressure. While NIBP can serve as a screening tool for hemodynamically stable children, those who are hemodynamically unstable and necessitate the initiation of vasoactive agents should undergo IBP monitoring.
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.