ReviewUS cardiology2022
Contemporary Review of Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critical Care Setting.
Review in US cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ability of the PulseCO Algorithm to Assess Changes in Stroke Volume Induced by Changes in Vascular Tone.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
- The Start of a Good Innings, 50 Years of Intensive Care Medicine.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Machine learning-enabled estimation of cardiac output from peripheral waveforms is independent of blood pressure measurement location in an in silico population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Current insights on temporary mechanical circulatory support in adults with post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Low B-type Natriuretic Peptide: A Diagnostic Dilemma.Cureus · 2025Article
- Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography in liver transplantation: A systematic review of clinical utility in managing hemodynamic challenges and complications.Tzu chi medical journalReview
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
Hemodynamic assessment remains the most valuable adjunct to physical examination and laboratory assessment in the diagnosis and management of shock. Through the years, multiple modalities to measure and trend hemodynamic indices have evolved with varying degrees of invasiveness. Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) has long been considered the gold standard of hemodynamic assessment in critically ill patients and in recent years has been shown to improve clinical outcomes among patients in cardiogenic shock. The invasive nature of PAC is often cited as its major limitation and has encouraged development of less invasive technologies. In this review, the authors summarize the literature on the mechanism and validation of several minimally invasive and noninvasive modalities available in the contemporary intensive care unit. They also provide an update on the use of focused bedside echocardiography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.