Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2025
Reproducibility and precision of renal perfusion quantification with contrast enhanced ultrasound in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The expanding role of ultrasound in acute kidney injury: from B-mode to microcirculation.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- A bibliometric analysis of ultrasound-based evaluation in renal transplantation.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
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
objectiveContrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a promising tool to assess renal microcirculation. However, its reproducibility has never been formally assessed. We aimed to assess the reproducibility and precision of CEUS measurements in critically ill patients.
methodsWe conducted an observational study in 20 critically ill patients in stable cardio-pulmonary condition. In group 1 (n = 10), to assess CEUS reproducibility, we performed three CEUS scans within a one-hour time frame in rigorously similar conditions and settings. In group 2 (n = 10), to assess the influence of ultrasound contrast agent rate, we performed two CEUS scans, one with standard settings and the second with a doubled ultrasound contrast agent rate. CEUS-derived parameters included relative blood volume (RBV), mean transit time (mTT) and perfusion index (PI). We used linear quantile mixed models to assess their reproducibility (stability across different time points), precision (variability of consecutive measurements), and the influence of a change in ultrasound contrast agent (UCA) infusion rate. Finally, we sought to determine patients' related factors associated with signal instability.
resultsIn Group 1, CEUS derived parameters remained similar across the three study timepoints (3 289 vs. 3 680 vs. 3 590 for RBV, 4.1 vs. 4.2 vs. 4.2 for mTT and 684 vs. 762 vs. 735 for PI, all p values > 0.05), indicating stability of these parameters within individual patients over time. Intra-measure coefficient of variability was 23.2% for RBV, 13.9% for mTT and 33.8% for PI. The median of five CEUS assessments yielded reliable estimates. In Group 2, doubling the UCA rate resulted in a significant increase in RBV (3 207 vs. 1 624, p = 0.01), and in PI (977 vs. 617, p = 0.01), while mTT remained stable (4.6 vs. 3.8, p = 0.08). No patients-related parameter could be significantly associated with CEUS parameters variability.
conclusionsUnder controlled conditions, CEUS derived parameters are reproducible and have a fair precision in critically ill patients in stable hemodynamic condition. mTT might be more reliable under varying infusion conditions. Further studies are required to establish the clinical utility of CEUS in critically ill 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.