Observational studyLa Tunisie medicale2024
Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.
Observational study in La Tunisie medicale, 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.
- Trends and Challenges in Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring of Neonates Following Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cardiac Indices Parameters on the Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor as Potential Indicators to Predict the Ultrafiltration Endpoint Success in Acute Heart Failure Treatment.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the agreement of cardiac index (CI) calculated by Ultrasonic sonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and transthoracic thoracic echocardiography (TTE) in order to know if we can recommend USCOM in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
designProspective observational evaluative study carried out over a period of 3 months Setting: PICU at children's hospital in Tunis Participants: All newborns without tracheostomy or a known congenital heart disease, admitted to the PICU during the study period were enrolled.
interventionsPaired and consecutive measurements of CI were obtained in all patients with both technologies. All measurements by TTE and USCOM were performed by two distinct operators. It is the average of three successive measures of the CI, in the same patient, with each technology, which was considered. Agreement of CI between the 2 techniques was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsForty-two infants were analyzed with the mean (standard deviation) gestation 36 weeks ( 5 days), age 1 days (1.09) , and weight 2.9 kg (0.87). Respiratory failure was the main cause of admission 75%. At the time of the study, 33 (75.%) patients were ventilated artificially. Bias (mean difference) of the CI between the two methods was 1.2 l/min/m2 and precision (± 2 SD of differences) was 1.08 l/min/m2. The MPE of CI measurement for USCOM vs TTE was 54.9%.
conclusionsThe USCOM showed a poor agreement to TTE measures of CI. The two methods cannot be considered interchangeable.
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.