ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Bedside Ultrasound and Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in Children with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical value of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICaS) in the management of pediatric septic shock. A retrospective analysis was conducted on children with septic shock admitted to our hospital. Patients were divided into three groups: The POCUS group received therapy guided by dynamic monitoring of cardiac index (CI), inferior vena cava variability (IVCV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The NICaS group was managed based on CI, stroke volume variability, and the Granov-Goor index (GGI). The control group received clinical evaluation and conventional hemodynamic management only. Outcomes were compared across the groups. A total of 116 children were enrolled, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups. The peak vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) was significantly lower in the POCUS and NICaS groups than in the control group [(40.8 ± 16.3) and (42.9 ± 18.2) vs. (56.1 ± 23.7), P < 0.05]. The resuscitation fluid volume was significantly reduced in the POCUS and NICaS groups compared with the control group [(36.4 ± 7.4) and (38.9 ± 14.8) vs. (46.7 ± 17.5) mL/kg, P < 0.05]. The time to achieve a negative fluid balance was significantly shorter in the POCUS and NICaS groups than in the control group [(36.4 ± 7.4) and (38.9 ± 14.8) vs. (46.7 ± 17.5) hours, P < 0.05]. The 28-day survival rate was significantly higher in the POCUS and NICaS groups than in the control group [(73.5%, 66.7%) vs. (45.2%), P < 0.05]. No significant differences in VIS, resuscitation fluid volume, time to negative fluid balance, or 28-day survival (P > 0.05) were observed between the POCUS and NICaS groups. CI values were comparable between the POCUS and NICaS groups [(2.8 ± 1.2) vs. (2.7 ± 1.1) L/(min·m²)], with no significant difference on the paired t-test (t = 0.931, P = 0.353). Pearson correlation analysis indicated a weak correlation between the two methods (r = 0.380, P = 0.546), whereas the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement (mean difference: 0.09255, 95% CI - 0.1031 to 0.2882). A significant positive correlation was observed between IVCV [(20.1% ± 7.6%)] and stroke volume variation (SVV) [(17.4% ± 7.2%)] (r = 0.705, P < 0.001) and between LVEF [(39.5% ± 14.2)] and GGI [(8.5% ± 4.0)] (r = 0.813, P < 0.001). In the management of pediatric septic shock, POCUS and NICaS facilitated earlier achievement of negative fluid balance, reduced the peak VIS, and increased the 28-day survival rate compared with conventional therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455295What 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.