ArticleATS scholar2024
Accuracy of Echocardiographic Cardiac Output Assessment by Critical Care Fellows.
Article in ATS scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Utilization of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral in the assessment of fluid responsiveness in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock - a systematic review.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive accuracy of velocity time integral in predicting in-hospital outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Close Enough? Feasibility, Success, and Sustainability of Critical Care Echocardiography Curricula.ATS scholar · 2024Article
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
Background: Advanced critical care echocardiography comprises a specific set of qualitative and quantitative point-of-care echocardiography skills, including a reliable, noninvasive method to measure cardiac output. This technique requires echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and LVOT velocity time integral (VTI). Although there is a demand among critical care fellows to learn these advanced techniques, there are no data describing the acquisition of mastery in these skills. Objective: This pilot study aims to describe the accuracy of echocardiographic measurement of LVOT diameter and LVOT VTI obtained by critical care fellows after an educational intervention, as well as to enhance validation evidence for an image scoring assessment that is applicable to these measurements. Methods: We implemented a brief mastery learning intervention to teach the measurement of LVOT diameter and VTI. Fellow measurements of these parameters, along with the corresponding echocardiographic images, were compared with a gold standard of measurements obtained by professional echocardiography technicians and interpreted by cardiologists. Results: Seven fellows performed 35 echocardiograms on 32 patients. The average fellow-reported LVOT VTI was 17.0 ± 4.37 cm, whereas the average cardiologist-reported VTI was 17.3 ± 5.19 cm. The correlation ( Conclusion: Critical care fellow measurement of LVOT VTI and LVOT diameter demonstrated strong and moderate positive correlations with cardiologist-reported values, respectively, with acceptable clinical agreement. However, interrater reliability and percent differences showed room for improvement. Education in these advanced skills is resource intensive, and additional research is needed to determine the most effective approach to training fellows.
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.