ReviewPulmonary circulation2026
Right Ventricular Pressure-Volume Loop Analysis in Large Animal Research: A Scoping Review of Current Practices Using Conductance and Admittance Catheters.
Review in Pulmonary circulation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Right ventricular (RV) function assessment using catheter-derived pressure-volume (PV) loops is used in translational research, providing detailed insights into cardiac mechanics. Its practical implementation requires methodological accuracy to ensure rigor, reproducibility and transparency. However, current practices for PV loop acquisition are set at individual laboratories, resulting in overall practice remaining largely unknown. This study aimed to explore current practices in RV PV loop acquisition in large animal research. We therefore conducted a scoping review registered on the Open Science Framework and guided by PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, with comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (December 2024). Eligible studies included large animal models published after 2014 using conductance or admittance catheters. Out of 5133 identified records, 62 met inclusion criteria. The review revealed underreporting and substantial variability in methodology, particularly in catheter placement, calibration, and ventilatory mode during PV loop recording. Catheter insertion sites included RV inflow (42%) and outflow tracts (19.4%); fluoroscopy was used in 51.6%. Calibration was not reported in one-third of studies. Loop recording during apnea were reported in 23%, mechanical ventilation in 26%, and was not specified in 51%. Overall, RV PV loop protocols show substantial heterogeneity, highlighting the need for standardized methodological reporting, to improve transparency, research reproducibility and translational significance. Expert consensus is warranted to establish methodological guidelines.
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.