ArticleJournal of anesthesia2024
Agreement between non-invasive and invasive arterial blood pressure during surgery in the prone position: an error grid analysis.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel prone retroperitoneal robotic-assisted approach for bilateral partial nephrectomy: a case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Association between intraoperative hypotension and adverse clinical outcomes after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: retrospective observational study.JA clinical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProne position has recently gained renewed importance as a treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome and spine and brain surgeries. Our study aimed to perform an error grid analysis to examine the clinical discrepancies between arterial blood pressure (ABP) and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) in the prone position and to investigate the risk factors influencing these differences.
methodsError grid analysis was performed retrospectively on 1389 pairs of 100 consecutive prone positioning cases. This analysis classifies the difference between the two methods into five clinically relevant zones, from "no risk" to "dangerous risk". Additionally, multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the risk zones of mean blood pressure (MBP), as classified by error grid analysis and the covariate of interest.
resultsError grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A-E for systolic blood pressure were 96.8%, 3.2%, 0.1%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. In contrast, the MBP proportions were 74.0%, 25.1%, 0.9%, 0.1%, and 0%. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed that the position of arms (next to the head) was a significant factor (adjusted odds ratio: 4.35, 95% CI: 2.38-8.33, P < 0.001).
conclusionError grid analysis revealed a clinically unacceptable discrepancy between ABP and NIBP for MBP during prone positioning surgery. The position of the arms next to the head was associated with increased clinical discrepancy between the two MBP measurement methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39138698What 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.