ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2025
Point of View: A Holistic Four-Interface Conceptual Model for Personalizing Shock Resuscitation.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Energy, flow and pressure in the cardiovascular system: a narrative review of how the circulation works.Anaesthesia · 2026Review
- Arterial dP/dtJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A structured 5-question approach for echocardiographic evaluation of undifferentiated shock.Echo research and practice · 2026Review
- Understanding the Nuanced Concept of Hemodynamic Incoherence and Its Underlying Physiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Geometry of Circulatory Shock: A Conceptual Multi-Scale Lagrangian Framework for Physiology-Informed Hemodynamic Phenotyping.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Less-Invasive Hemodynamic and Tissue Perfusion Monitoring in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Arteriolar Collapse and Haemodynamic Incoherence in Shock: Rethinking Critical Closing Pressure.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Unnecessary fluid therapy in patients with shock: Five classic fluid pitfalls and five ways to do it better.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- The intricate relationship between capillary refill time and systemic hemodynamics in septic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The resuscitation of a patient in shock is a highly complex endeavor that should go beyond normalizing mean arterial pressure and protocolized fluid loading. We propose a holistic, four-interface conceptual model of shock that we believe can benefit both clinicians at the bedside and researchers. The four circulatory interfaces whose uncoupling results in shock are as follows: the left ventricle to arterial, the arterial to capillary, the capillary to venular, and finally the right ventricle to pulmonary artery. We review the pathophysiology and clinical consequences behind the uncoupling of these interfaces, as well as how to assess them, and propose a strategy for approaching a patient in shock. Bedside assessment of shock may include these critical interfaces in order to avoid hemodynamic incoherence and to focus on microcirculatory restoration rather than simply mean arterial pressure. The purpose of this model is to serve as a mental model for learners as well as a framework for further resuscitation research that incorporates these concepts.
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.