SynthesisPloS one2025
Predictive accuracy of changes in the inferior vena cava diameter for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Application and comparative study of critical care ultrasound and noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in fluid resuscitation of neonatal septic shock: a randomized controlled trial].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Clinical applications of 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging in hepatic vascular disorders: practical biomarkers, protocol design, and translational implementation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Review
- Septic Cardiomyopathy in the ICU: Echocardiographic Phenotypes, Global Longitudinal Strain, and Right Ventricular Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
backgroundExisting guidelines emphasize the importance of initial fluid resuscitation therapy in sepsis management. However, in previous meta-analyses, there have been inconsistencies in differentiating between spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated septic patients.
objectiveTo consolidate the literature on the predictive accuracy of changes in the inferior vena cava diameter (∆IVC) for fluid responsiveness in septic patients.
methodsThe Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical (CBM) and VIP (Weipu) databases were comprehensively searched. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata 15.0 software and Meta-DiSc 1.4.
resultsTwenty-one research studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. The sensitivity and specificity of ∆ IVC were 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.90) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.91), respectively. With respect to the distensibility of the inferior vena cava (dIVC), the sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.86), and the specificity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73, 0.89). For collapsibility of the inferior vena cava (cIVC), the sensitivity and specificity values were 0.92 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.86, 0.97), respectively.
conclusionThe results indicated that ∆IVC is as a dependable marker for fluid responsiveness in sepsis patients. dIVC and cIVC also exhibited high levels of accuracy in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic 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.