Literature DB >> 21521974

Bias and precision statistics: should we still adhere to the 30% benchmark for cardiac output monitor validation studies?

Lester A H Critchley.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21521974     DOI： 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318215e1e5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN： 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


× No keyword cloud information.
  15 in total

1.  How to "validate" newly developed cardiac output monitoring devices.

Authors:  J J Vos; T W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Agreement in hemodynamic monitoring during orthotopic liver transplantation: a comparison of FloTrac/Vigileo at two monitoring sites with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution.

Authors:  Matthew Lee; Laurence Weinberg; Brett Pearce; Nicholas Scurrah; David A Story; Param Pillai; Peter R McCall; Larry P McNicol; Philip J Peyton
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method.

Authors:  Alexander Hapfelmeier; Maurizio Cecconi; Bernd Saugel
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-05-31       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Validation of electrical velocimetry in resuscitation of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Observational study.

Authors:  Ahmed M Mukhtar; Mohamed Elayashy; Amr H Sayed; Gihan M Obaya; Akram A Eladawy; Mai A Ali; Hisham M Dahab; Dina Z Khalaf; Mostafa A Mohamed; Amr H Elfouly; Gad M Behairy; Amr A Abdelaal
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-04-19       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  How precise is "precision" of hemodynamic measurements in clinical validation studies?

Authors:  Martin Petzoldt; Bernd Saugel; Daniel A Reuter
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Performance of a second generation pulmonary capnotracking system for continuous monitoring of cardiac output.

Authors:  Philip J Peyton; Monique Kozub
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  A comparison of volume clamp method-based continuous noninvasive cardiac output (CNCO) measurement versus intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in postoperative cardiothoracic surgery patients.

Authors:  Julia Y Wagner; Annmarie Körner; Leonie Schulte-Uentrop; Mathias Kubik; Hermann Reichenspurner; Stefan Kluge; Daniel A Reuter; Bernd Saugel
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.502

8.  Model-based approach to investigate equipment-induced error in pressure-waveform derived hemodynamic measurements.

Authors:  Masoud Farahmand; Hossein Mirinejad; Christopher G Scully
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 2.833

9.  Importance of re-calibration time on pulse contour analysis agreement with thermodilution measurements of cardiac output: a retrospective analysis of intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Christopher G Scully; Shanti Gomatam; Shawn Forrest; David G Strauss
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.502

10.  Comparing cardiac output monitors and defining agreement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Iain R Crossingham; Daniel R Nethercott; Malachy O Columb
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2016-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.