Literature DB >> 21360209

Challenges in comparison of Doppler CO measurement methods and the importance of understanding ultrasound theory and practice.

Rob A Phillips1, Brendan E Smith.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21360209     DOI： 10.1007/s10877-011-9275-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN： 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


× No keyword cloud information.
  8 in total

1.  Guidelines for cardiac sonographer education: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography Sonographer Training and Education Committee.

Authors:  D Ehler; D K Carney; A L Dempsey; R Rigling; C Kraft; S A Witt; T R Kimball; E J Sisk; E A Geiser; C D Gresser; A Waggoner
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.251

2.  Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography.

Authors:  Miguel A Quiñones; Catherine M Otto; Marcus Stoddard; Alan Waggoner; William A Zoghbi
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.251

3.  Measurement of aortic blood flow by Doppler echocardiography: temporal, technician, and reader variability in normal subjects and the application of generalizability theory in clinical research.

Authors:  F Kusumoto; T Venet; N B Schiller; A Sebastian; E Foster
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.251

4.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Clinical Application of Echocardiography). Developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography.

Authors:  M D Cheitlin; J S Alpert; W F Armstrong; G P Aurigemma; G A Beller; F Z Bierman; T W Davidson; J L Davis; P S Douglas; L D Gillam
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-03-18       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Interrater reliability of cardiac output measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound: implications for noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the ED.

Authors:  H Bryant Nguyen; Theodore Losey; Janet Rasmussen; Rebecca Oliver; Mindi Guptill; William A Wittlake; Stephen W Corbett
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.469

7.  Inter-rater reliability for noninvasive measurement of cardiac function in children.

Authors:  Gail M Stewart; H Bryant Nguyen; Tommy Y Kim; Joshua Jauregui; Sean R Hayes; Stephen Corbett
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.454

8.  Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Amanda Corley; Adrian G Barnett; Dan Mullany; John F Fraser
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 5.837
  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Age-specific non-invasive transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound derived haemodynamic reference ranges in elderly Chinese adults.

Authors:  Cangel Pui-Yee Chan; Nandini Agarwal; King-Keung Sin; Sangeeta Narain; Brendan E Smith; Colin A Graham; Timothy H Rainer
Journal:  BBA Clin       Date:  2014-09-28
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.