SynthesisAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2024
Superior vena cava collapsibility index as a predictor of fluid responsiveness: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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.
- Endothelial Activation and Stress Index as an Indicator of Early Hemodynamic Instability in Critically Ill Patients: A Single-Centre Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Testosterone and androgen receptor pathway modulation in sepsis: immunometabolic mechanisms and therapeutic implications - a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe superior vena cava collapsibility index (SVC-CI) is a potential marker of fluid responsiveness (FR) in mechanically ventilated patients. Few studies reporting its diagnostic performance are currently available. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic search, using the PRISMA approach, was performed using the Medline and EMBASE databases. Prospective studies evaluating the SVC-CI as a marker of FR in ventilated adult patients were included. A bivariate random-effect model was utilised to generate the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC), the sensitivity and specificity of the curve operating point were calculated.
resultsWe included eight studies with a total of 857 patients, in whom SVC-CI was evaluated a total of 1083 times prior to the volume expansion trial. In 609 (56.23%) trial cases FR was present. The SROC curve demonstrated that the test's operating point has a sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% (95% CI: 66.3-90%) and 81.4% (95% CI: 76.4-85.5%), respectively. The model's AUC was equal to 0.848 (95% CI: 0.824-0.863) with P < 0.001. No significant inter-study heterogeneity was found (I 2 = 0%). A subgroup analysis revealed a significantly lower sensitivity of SVC-CI in patients with higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (> 5 cm H 2 O) (χ 2 = 7.753, df = 2, P = 0.0207). The study setting and type of intervention for volume expansion did not significantly change the performance of the test.
conclusionsSVC-CI is a reliable predictor of FR for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units and operating rooms. A PEEP level exceeding 5 cm H 2 O may impair the sensitivity of the test.
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.