Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid re...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Haijun Huang [verfasserIn] Qinkang Shen [verfasserIn] Yafen Liu [verfasserIn] Hua Xu [verfasserIn] Yixin Fang [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Critical Care - BMC, 2015, 22(2018), 1, Seite 7
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:22 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; pages:7

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ047045507

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ047045507
003	DE-627
005	20230308120138.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ047045507
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC86-88.9
100	0		\|a Haijun Huang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
650		4	\|a Fluid responsiveness
650		4	\|a Inferior vena cava diameter
650		4	\|a Mechanical ventilation
650		4	\|a Meta-analysis
653		0	\|a Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
700	0		\|a Qinkang Shen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yafen Liu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hua Xu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yixin Fang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Critical Care \|d BMC, 2015 \|g 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 \|w (DE-627)331258269 \|w (DE-600)2051256-9 \|x 1466609X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:22 \|g year:2018 \|g number:1 \|g pages:7
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 22 \|j 2018 \|e 1 \|h 7

Indexfelder

author_variant	h h hh q s qs y l yl h x hx y f yf
matchkey_str	article:1466609X:2018----::auovrainneoifrovncvdaeeipeitnfudepnieesnainsihicltrsokeevnmcaia
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 doi (DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC86-88.9 Haijun Huang verfasserin aut Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Qinkang Shen verfasserin aut Yafen Liu verfasserin aut Hua Xu verfasserin aut Yixin Fang verfasserin aut In Critical Care BMC, 2015 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 (DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9 1466609X nnns volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2018 1 7
spelling	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 doi (DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC86-88.9 Haijun Huang verfasserin aut Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Qinkang Shen verfasserin aut Yafen Liu verfasserin aut Hua Xu verfasserin aut Yixin Fang verfasserin aut In Critical Care BMC, 2015 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 (DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9 1466609X nnns volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2018 1 7
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 doi (DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC86-88.9 Haijun Huang verfasserin aut Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Qinkang Shen verfasserin aut Yafen Liu verfasserin aut Hua Xu verfasserin aut Yixin Fang verfasserin aut In Critical Care BMC, 2015 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 (DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9 1466609X nnns volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2018 1 7
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 doi (DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC86-88.9 Haijun Huang verfasserin aut Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Qinkang Shen verfasserin aut Yafen Liu verfasserin aut Hua Xu verfasserin aut Yixin Fang verfasserin aut In Critical Care BMC, 2015 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 (DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9 1466609X nnns volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2018 1 7
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 doi (DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC86-88.9 Haijun Huang verfasserin aut Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Qinkang Shen verfasserin aut Yafen Liu verfasserin aut Hua Xu verfasserin aut Yixin Fang verfasserin aut In Critical Care BMC, 2015 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 (DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9 1466609X nnns volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2018 1 7
language	English
source	In Critical Care 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7
sourceStr	In Critical Care 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 volume:22 year:2018 number:1 pages:7
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Critical Care
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Haijun Huang @@aut@@ Qinkang Shen @@aut@@ Yafen Liu @@aut@@ Hua Xu @@aut@@ Yixin Fang @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	331258269
id	DOAJ047045507
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ047045507</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308120138.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ047045507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC86-88.9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Haijun Huang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fluid responsiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Inferior vena cava diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mechanical ventilation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qinkang Shen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yafen Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hua Xu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yixin Fang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Critical Care</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2018), 1, Seite 7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331258269</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2051256-9</subfield><subfield code="x">1466609X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">7</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Haijun Huang
spellingShingle	Haijun Huang misc RC86-88.9 misc Fluid responsiveness misc Inferior vena cava diameter misc Mechanical ventilation misc Meta-analysis misc Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Haijun Huang
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)331258269
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC86-88
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1466609X
topic_title	RC86-88.9 Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Fluid responsiveness Inferior vena cava diameter Mechanical ventilation Meta-analysis
topic	misc RC86-88.9 misc Fluid responsiveness misc Inferior vena cava diameter misc Mechanical ventilation misc Meta-analysis misc Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
topic_unstemmed	misc RC86-88.9 misc Fluid responsiveness misc Inferior vena cava diameter misc Mechanical ventilation misc Meta-analysis misc Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
topic_browse	misc RC86-88.9 misc Fluid responsiveness misc Inferior vena cava diameter misc Mechanical ventilation misc Meta-analysis misc Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Critical Care
hierarchy_parent_id	331258269
hierarchy_top_title	Critical Care
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)331258269 (DE-600)2051256-9
title	Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ047045507 (DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34
title_full	Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Haijun Huang
journal	Critical Care
journalStr	Critical Care
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	7
author_browse	Haijun Huang Qinkang Shen Yafen Liu Hua Xu Yixin Fang
container_volume	22
class	RC86-88.9
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Haijun Huang
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
callnumber	RC86-88.9
title_auth	Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
abstractGer	Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535
remote_bool	true
author2	Qinkang Shen Yafen Liu Hua Xu Yixin Fang
author2Str	Qinkang Shen Yafen Liu Hua Xu Yixin Fang
ppnlink	331258269
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4
callnumber-a	RC86-88.9
up_date	2024-07-03T23:48:09.107Z
_version_	1803603661665861632
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ047045507</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308120138.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ047045507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC86-88.9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Haijun Huang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Results Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66–0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33–36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fluid responsiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Inferior vena cava diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mechanical ventilation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Qinkang Shen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yafen Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hua Xu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yixin Fang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Critical Care</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2018), 1, Seite 7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331258269</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2051256-9</subfield><subfield code="x">1466609X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/18e7b88596e145cb9678985955d44d34</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1364-8535</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">7</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4011927

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?