ArticlePOCUS journal2025
Agreement of IVC Diameter Measurements via Subcostal and Transhepatic POCUS Views.
Article in POCUS journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is essential for hemodynamic evaluation, with the subcostal view (SCV) being the gold standard. However, in situations where this view is inaccessible, the transhepatic view (THV) is a viable alternative. This study evaluates the concordance between these two views in ventilated and non-ventilated patients, categorizing the IVC as small, intermediate, or large. Methods: This prospective observational study included 99 patients; healthy volunteers, ventilated patients, and non-ventilated patients. We measured end-expiratory IVC diameter, classified as small (<10 mm), intermediate (10-20 mm) or large (>20 mm), via SVC and THV. We then assessed agreement by categorical concordance, using Bland-Altman (mean bias ± 95% limits) and Pearson's correlation (r). Results: The overall concordance between both views was 83.8% (83/99; 95% CI: 76.4-90%). By IVC diameter category, concordance was 93.8% (15/16; 95% CI: 69.8-99.8) for small, 84% (42/50; 95% CI: 70-90 %) for intermediate, and 82% (27/33; 95% CI: 77-95%) for large. Concordance was unaffected by ventilation status (p = 0.83), but patients with Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30 had lower concordance than those with BMI < 30 (73.9% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.086). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of +0.22 mm with 95% limits of agreement from -6.99 to +7.43 mm. Pearson's correlation coefficient for the 99 paired measurements was r = 0.86 (p < 0.001), overall, and when stratified by category was r = 0.81 (small), r = 0.78 (intermediate) and r = 0.74 (large) (all p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of THV for identifying "responders" (CI > 42%) were 28% and 93%, respectively. Conclusion: The THV is a reliable alternative for categorical evaluation of the IVC, particularly when the SCV is inaccessible. This method supports rapid and accurate clinical decision, especially for dichotomous POCUS decisions but should be used cautiously in patients with elevated BMI.
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.