SynthesisEuropean journal of anaesthesiology2025
Context-specific clinical applicability of the end-expiratory occlusion test to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of anaesthesiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emergence of context-specific clinical evidence from the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) may change the perception of its operative performance to predict fluid responsiveness.
objectivesAssessment of predictive performance of the EEOT in the intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room.
designSystematic review of observational diagnostic test accuracy studies with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus were used as data sources for relevant publications until February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective clinical studies in which the EEOT was used to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated adults, regardless of the clinical care context. The operative performance characteristics must also have been reported.
resultsTwenty-four studies involving 1073 adult patients (588 receiving intensive care and 485 in the operating room) were systematically reviewed, and 22 studies comprising 1049 volume expansions were meta-analysed. The pooled sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)] of the EEOT was 0.87 (0.81 to 0.92), and the pooled specificity was 0.90 (0.85 to 0.94); the median [interquartile range] cardiac index ( CI ) threshold for a positive test was a 5.0 [3.3 to 5.3] increase. The clinical context, the method used for haemodynamic monitoring, the ratio of the averaging time of the monitoring method to the occlusion time, the levels of positive end-expiratory pressure and the choice of cardiac output marker were identified as significant sources of heterogeneity. However, the occlusion duration and tidal volume did not significantly affect its performance. A novel insight is that performance was notably lower in the operating room setting. The likelihood ratios were 14 (positive) and 0.12 (negative) for the ICU, both better than 3.1 and 0.21 for the operating room. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed to be very low, mainly due to high heterogeneity and risk of bias; however, no publication bias was detected.
conclusionThe EEOT for predicting fluid responsiveness in critical care performs acceptably well overall and is a confirmative test. In the operating room and/or with specific technical settings, its performance and clinical utility are reduced, driving the need for more context-specific and patient-specific fluid responsiveness assessments.
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.