Comparing different methods of cardiac output determination: A call for consensus [1]

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 710-

  Bein, B ^a   Renner, J ^a   Scholz, J ^a   Tonner, P H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; HEART OUTPUT; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LETTER; PATIENT MONITORING; PULSE INDUCED CONTOUR CARDIAC OUTPUT; STANDARD; THERMODILUTION; TRANSPULMONARY THERMODILUTION;

ANIMALS; CARDIAC OUTPUT; CONSENSUS; MODELS, ANIMAL; PULMONARY ARTERY; SWINE; THERMODILUTION;

EID: 33745726744     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0265021506211128     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Bajorat J, Hofmockel R, Vagts DA et al. Comparison of invasive and less-invasive techniques of cardiac output measurement under different haemodynamic conditions in a pig model. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 23-30.
2. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310.
3. Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit 1999; 15: 85-91.
4. Linton NW, Linton RA. Is comparison of changes in cardiac output, assessed by different methods, better than only comparing cardiac output to the reference method? Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 336-337.