ArticleRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina)2025
[Validation of a new impedance cardiography device for noninvasive hemodynamic measurement in outpatient hypertensive patients]
Article in Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the new cardiograph ZLogic for non-invasive measurements of Stroke volume (SV) and Cardiac output (CO) against the Minnesota cardiograph. Methods: 86 subjects from both genders, 18-80 years old, hypertensive and healthy volunteers were included. Three hemodynamic measurements performed with each device, in an alternate fashion, using the Bland-Altman method to determine the level of agreement. Percentage error was calculated for interchangeability of both methods. Results: Mean SV was 86.71±27.35 mL and mean CO 5.42±1.74 L/min. There was a strong correlation between measures of SV and CO obtained with both devices (r=0.99, p<0.001). Mean difference (MD) for SV was 0.65±3.08 mL (CI95%: -0.01-1.31) and 95% limits of agreement −5.39 to +6.69 mL. MD for CO was 0.05±0.17 L/min (CI95%: 0.01-0.09) and the 95% limits of agreement −0.28 to +0.38 L/min. Conclusion: ZLogic and Minnesota cardiographs provided equivalent SV and CO values in ambulatory hypertensive patients.
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.