Literature DB >> 24807085

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

Martin Petzoldt1, Bernd Saugel, Daniel A Reuter.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 24807085     DOI： 10.1007/s00134-014-3317-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN： 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

Review 1.  A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output.

Authors:  Lester A Critchley; Anna Lee; Anthony M-H Ho
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 5.108

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

Authors:  Lester A H Critchley
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  Assessment of agreement and trending between haemodynamic monitors is still challenging.

Authors:  Oliver Hunsicker; Aarne Feldheiser; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Claudia Spies
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Are we ready for the age of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring?

Authors:  B Saugel; D A Reuter
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Stroke volume determination using transcardiopulmonary thermodilution and arterial pulse contour analysis in severe aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Martin Petzoldt; Carsten Riedel; Jan Braeunig; Sebastian Haas; Matthias S Goepfert; Hendrik Treede; Stephan Baldus; Alwin E Goetz; Daniel A Reuter
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 17.440
  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.