↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4168-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. G. Eskesen, M. Wetterslev, A. Perner

Abstract

Central venous pressure (CVP) has been shown to have poor predictive value for fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. We aimed to re-evaluate this in a larger sample subgrouped by baseline CVP values. In April 2015, we systematically searched and included all clinical studies evaluating the value of CVP in predicting fluid responsiveness. We contacted investigators for patient data sets. We subgrouped data as lower (<8 mmHg), intermediate (8-12 mmHg) and higher (>12 mmHg) baseline CVP. We included 51 studies; in the majority, mean/median CVP values were in the intermediate range (8-12 mmHg) in both fluid responders and non-responders. In an analysis of patient data sets (n = 1148) from 22 studies, the area under the receiver operating curve was above 0.50 in the <8 mmHg CVP group [0.57 (95 % CI 0.52-0.62)] in contrast to the 8-12 mmHg and >12 mmHg CVP groups in which the lower 95 % CI crossed 0.50. We identified some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness for specific low and high values of CVP, respectively, but none of the predictive values were above 66 % for any CVPs from 0 to 20 mmHg. There were less data on higher CVPs, in particular >15 mmHg, making the estimates on predictive values less precise for higher CVP. Most studies evaluating fluid responsiveness reported mean/median CVP values in the intermediate range of 8-12 mmHg both in responders and non-responders. In a re-analysis of 1148 patient data sets, specific lower and higher CVP values had some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness, respectively, but predictive values were low for all specific CVP values assessed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 30 14%
Student > Postgraduate 30 14%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 47 23%
Unknown 36 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 41 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,213,270
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,107
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,079
of 316,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#8
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.