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
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: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Critical Care - BMC, 2015, 22(2018), 1, Seite 7 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:22 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; pages:7 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ047045507 |
---|
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 |
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 |