↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12947-016-0076-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Ciozda, Ilan Kedan, Devin W. Kehl, Raymond Zimmer, Raj Khandwalla, Asher Kimchi

Abstract

Central venous pressure (CVP) and right atrial pressure (RAP) are important parameters in the complete hemodynamic assessment of a patient. Sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter is a non-invasive method of estimating these parameters, but there are limited data summarizing its diagnostic accuracy across multiple studies. We performed a comprehensive review of the existing literature to examine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of sonographic measurement of IVC diameter as a method for assessing CVP and RAP. We performed a systematic search using PubMed of clinical studies comparing sonographic evaluation of IVC diameter and collapsibility against gold standard measurements of CVP and RAP. We included clinical studies that were performed in adults, used current imaging techniques, and were published in English. Twenty one clinical studies were identified that compared sonographic assessment of IVC diameter with CVP and RAP and met all inclusion criteria. Despite substantial heterogeneity in measurement techniques and patient populations, most studies demonstrated moderate strength correlations between measurements of IVC diameter and collapsibility and CVP or RAP, but more favorable diagnostic accuracy using pre-specified cut points. Findings were inconsistent among mechanically ventilated patients, except in the absence of positive end-expiratory pressure. Sonographic measurement of IVC diameter and collapsibility is a valid method of estimating CVP and RAP. Given the ease, safety, and availability of this non-invasive technique, broader adoption and application of this method in clinical settings is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Other 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Unspecified 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 42 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 75%
Unspecified 18 16%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 5 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,835,939
of 8,342,643 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#82
of 206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,204
of 254,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,342,643 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 254,698 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.