Skip to main content

Table 2 General characteristics of included studies

From: The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review

Author Year Location Setting Design Aims Level of evidence* Appraisal comments
Corl38 2012 USA Single centre, academic ED Diagnostic To determine the accuracy of the caval index to detect fluid responsiveness 4 • High risk of bias
• Convenience sample, unclear description of population
• Gold standard (TEB) questionable
• Patients were excluded from analysis due to incomplete data
Jung42 2012 Korea Single centre, academic ED Diagnostic To determine the validity of corrected flow to predict fluid responsiveness 4 • High risk of bias
• Not presented as a diagnostic test study
• Unclear patient selection method
• No blinding to reference test measurements.
• No pre-specified threshold
Feissel40 2013 France Single centre, ED Diagnostic To determine whether plethysmographic variability index can predict
fluid responsiveness
3 • High risk of bias
• Not presented as a diagnostic test study
• Unclear patient selection method.
• Inappropriate exclusions
• Patients were excluded from analysis due to incomplete data
• No pre-specified threshold
Coen37 2014 Italy Single centre, major metropolitan ED Treatment To investigate the reliability of caval index and lung ultrasound to guide fluid infusion 4 • High risk of bias
• No control group
• No sample size calculation
de Valk39 2014 Netherlands Single centre, academic ED Diagnostic To investigate the reliability of caval index to predict fluid responsiveness 4 • High risk of bias
• Convenience sample
• No pre-specified threshold.
• Gold standard test questionable
• No blinding to index test measurements
• Patients were excluded from analysis due to incomplete data
• No pre-specified threshold
Duus41 2015 USA Single centre, adult ED Diagnostic To determine the reproducibility of PLR and fluid bolus monitored by bioreactance in predicting fluid responsiveness 3 • High risk of bias
• Observational
• Convenience sample.
• Consecutive measures may influence each other
• No blinding to index test measurements
Hou36 2016 USA Multi centre Treatment
(RCT)
To evaluate the impact of a fluid responsiveness protocol in decreasing organ failure 4 • Lack of blinding
• Relatively few patients per center
• Only collected 10% of planned sample. Very likely Type II error
• Downgraded due to imprecision
Kuan35 2016 Singapore Single centre, academic ED Treatment
(RCT)
To Evaluate a non-invasive heamodynamic algorithm compared to standard care 2 • Lack of blinding
• Underpowered: high difference in primary outcome – ARR 25%. RRR approx. 40%
  1. RCT, Randomised controlled trial; TEB, thoracic electrical bioimpedance; ARR, absolute risk reduction; RRR, relative risk reduction; ED, emergency department; PLR, passive leg raise