↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of cardiac output measurements by echocardiography vs. thermodilution: the techniques are not interchangeable

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review of cardiac output measurements by echocardiography vs. thermodilution: the techniques are not interchangeable
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4258-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mik Wetterslev, Hasse Møller-Sørensen, Rasmus Rothmann Johansen, Anders Perner

Abstract

Echocardiography is frequently used in the hemodynamic evaluation of critically ill patients, but inaccurate measurements may lead to wrong clinical decisions. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the interchangeability of echocardiography with thermodilution technique in measuring cardiac output and its changes. In August 2015 we systematically searched electronic databases and included studies investigating the echocardiographic measurement of cardiac output compared with thermodilution technique using the Bland-Altman method. Two authors independently reviewed the studies and extracted data on type of measurements, clinical setting and characteristics, and those of the Bland-Altman and trending ability analyses. We identified 13,834 citations and included 24 studies in the final analysis. The median number of participants was 32 (range 8-65). Most of the studies assessed left-sided heart structures and the majority had small bias, wide limits of agreement, and high percentage error between echocardiography and thermodilution. In only two of the 24 studies the precision of each technique (echocardiography and thermodilution) was assessed before comparing them. In the single study evaluating trending ability using valid methodology, agreement was observed between echocardiography and thermodilution in detecting the directional changes in cardiac output, but the magnitude of changes varied considerably. The majority of studies comparing echocardiography with thermodilution were difficult to interpret, but current evidence does not support interchangeability between these techniques in measuring cardiac output. The techniques may be interchangeable in tracking directional changes in cardiac output, but this has to be confirmed in large high-quality studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Other 13 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 83%
Unspecified 6 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,647,630
of 13,044,927 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,182
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,771
of 264,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#33
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,927 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.