ReviewThe Journal of international medical research2026
Ultrasound of the inferior vena cava for fluid therapy decisions: Strengths, limitations, and an integrated approach.
Review in The Journal of international medical research, 2026. 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.
- Multimodal Diagnostic Ultrasound for Congestion, Perfusion, and Ultrafiltration Tolerance in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Rethinking Congestion in Heart Failure from Volume Overload to Venous Pressure and Organ Disfunction with VExUS.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- The relationship between lactate-to-albumin ratio and prognosis in patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Accurate assessment of fluid responsiveness is critical in resuscitation; however, static indices often fail to predict it accurately. Inferior vena cava ultrasonography is valued for its simplicity and accessibility; however, its predictive accuracy in real-world settings remains uncertain. This narrative review examined the physiological rationale, limitations, and clinical utility of inferior vena cava ultrasonography. Although inferior vena cava ultrasonography leverages the Frank-Starling mechanism and heart-lung interactions, its measurements are susceptible to confounders (e.g. ventilator settings, spontaneous breathing, right-heart dysfunction, and intra-abdominal pressure) and operator-dependent variability. Evidence from heterogeneous cohorts has shown moderate accuracy, with reliable performance often limited to strictly controlled conditions. In lung-protective ventilation or mixed populations, its discriminative ability declines, raising the risk of misclassification. Consequently, inferior vena cava ultrasonography should not be used as a standalone tool for guiding fluid therapy. Its optimal role lies within a multimodal, iterative strategy incorporating passive leg raising, left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral, lung ultrasound, and venous excess ultrasound. In practice, inferior vena cava ultrasonography should inform but not decide fluid therapy; its safest role is as a contextual trend within a physiology-first, function-centered, and congestion-aware workflow.
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.