ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Development and validation of a proposed rule for estimating central venous pressure from inferior vena cava dynamics: a clinical prediction model study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06166875 (Accuracy of Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility Index as a Measure of Central Venous Pressure), which is not on this 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.
Accuracy of Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility Index as a Measure of Central Venous Pressure
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to derive and validate a prediction rule for estimating the central venous pressure (CVP) from the inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVCCI) in adults.
methodsFive hundred forty paired CVP-IVCCI measures were obtained from 180 adults. The CVP was measured via a central venous catheter connected to a pressure transducer, and the IVCCI was estimated by abdominal ultrasound. The dataset was randomly split at the patient level into training (121 patients, 363 observations) and validation (59 patients, 177 observations) samples. A generalized estimating equation for repeated measures was used to fit a prediction rule from the training sample, which was validated on the validation subset.
resultsThe model showed promising performance with a mean absolute error of 2.13 mmHg and 75.7% of predictions falling within ± 3 mmHg of the true values. The limits of agreement ranged from -6.0 to + 4.3 mmHg, 85.9% of predictions fell within a prespecified maximum accepted difference of ± 4 mmHg, and the direction of change was correctly predicted in 65.3% of instances. Calibration analysis showed the model tended to systematically underestimate high values and vice versa, but recalibration by applying a shrinkage factor worsened the model's performance.
conclusionsThe suggested rule exhibits promising performance for most instances, rendering it useful for non-invasive trend monitoring and triaging purposes. However, single-point estimates carry considerable uncertainty that precludes their use for definitive, high-stakes clinical decisions. Validation on larger cohorts and recalibration utilizing more elaborate modeling methods are recommended before it is adopted for regular use.
trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered at the clinicaltrials.gov registry ( https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ , registration number: NCT06166875, registration date: 4 December 2023).
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.