A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography
: Our aim was to provide a meta‐analysis of the literature concerning the validation of thoracic impedance cardiography (TIC) and to explain variations in reported results from differences in the studies. One hundred fifty‐four studies (164 Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficients) compa...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999-04, Vol.873 (1), p.121-127 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 127 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 121 |
| container_title | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |
| container_volume | 873 |
| creator | RAAIJMAKERS, E. FAES, TH. J. C. SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M. GOOVAERTS, H. G. HEETHAAR, R. M. |
| description | : Our aim was to provide a meta‐analysis of the literature concerning the validation of thoracic impedance cardiography (TIC) and to explain variations in reported results from differences in the studies. One hundred fifty‐four studies (164 Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficients) comparing measurements of cardiac output or related parameters from TIC and a reference method were analyzed. Papers were classified according to differences in TIC methodology, reference method, and subject characteristics. Pooling using the random‐effects method yielded an overall correlation of r= 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80‐0.84). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the reference method and the subject characteristics on the correlation coefficient. In cardiac patients, the correlation was significantly decreased. No influence of the applied TIC methodology was found. Conclusion: TIC might be useful for trend analysis of different groups of patients. However, since the reference method was of significant influence, differences between TIC and the reference method are incorrectly attributed to TIC alone. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69833926</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69833926</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4751-6728c83c4fbd3400c8c4f480cf0bf6ef3f38f16acff03527efb5e56ce90a529a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkF1v0zAUQC0EYmXwF5DFA2_J_JHENi-oq2BMdAOp4-vJcpzr1SVNip2I5t8vUaqJV_xiSz73XOkg9IaSlI7nYpdSkamkKDhLqVIq7Uqislymxydo8fj1FC0IESKRivEz9CLGHSGUyUw8R2eUcMForhZIL_ENdCYxjamH6CNuHf7al7WPW6jwpusrDxGv2sZCaHxzj7st4O-m9pXvhgm-27bBWG_x9f4AlRk5vDKh8u19MIft8BI9c6aO8Op0n6NvHz_crT4l6y9X16vlOrGZyGlSCCat5DZzZcUzQqwcn5kk1pHSFeC449LRwljnCM-ZAFfmkBcWFDE5U4afo7ez9xDaPz3ETu99tFDXpoG2j7pQknPFihF8N4M2tDEGcPoQ_N6EQVOip7x6p6eGemqop7z6lFcfx-HXpy19uYfqn9G55wi8n4G_vobhP9T69tdyQxkdDcls8LGD46PBhN-6EFzk-sftlb4k68_k5udGr_kDsM2bVA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69833926</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>RAAIJMAKERS, E. ; FAES, TH. J. C. ; SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M. ; GOOVAERTS, H. G. ; HEETHAAR, R. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>RAAIJMAKERS, E. ; FAES, TH. J. C. ; SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M. ; GOOVAERTS, H. G. ; HEETHAAR, R. M.</creatorcontrib><description>: Our aim was to provide a meta‐analysis of the literature concerning the validation of thoracic impedance cardiography (TIC) and to explain variations in reported results from differences in the studies. One hundred fifty‐four studies (164 Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficients) comparing measurements of cardiac output or related parameters from TIC and a reference method were analyzed. Papers were classified according to differences in TIC methodology, reference method, and subject characteristics. Pooling using the random‐effects method yielded an overall correlation of r= 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80‐0.84). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the reference method and the subject characteristics on the correlation coefficient. In cardiac patients, the correlation was significantly decreased. No influence of the applied TIC methodology was found. Conclusion: TIC might be useful for trend analysis of different groups of patients. However, since the reference method was of significant influence, differences between TIC and the reference method are incorrectly attributed to TIC alone.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0077-8923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1749-6632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10372159</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Age Factors ; Analysis of Variance ; Cardiac Output ; Cardiography, Impedance - methods ; Electric Impedance ; Female ; Heart - physiology ; Humans ; Male ; Pregnancy ; Reproducibility of Results ; Stroke Volume</subject><ispartof>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1999-04, Vol.873 (1), p.121-127</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4751-6728c83c4fbd3400c8c4f480cf0bf6ef3f38f16acff03527efb5e56ce90a529a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4751-6728c83c4fbd3400c8c4f480cf0bf6ef3f38f16acff03527efb5e56ce90a529a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10372159$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>RAAIJMAKERS, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FAES, TH. J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOOVAERTS, H. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HEETHAAR, R. M.</creatorcontrib><title>A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography</title><title>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</title><addtitle>Ann N Y Acad Sci</addtitle><description>: Our aim was to provide a meta‐analysis of the literature concerning the validation of thoracic impedance cardiography (TIC) and to explain variations in reported results from differences in the studies. One hundred fifty‐four studies (164 Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficients) comparing measurements of cardiac output or related parameters from TIC and a reference method were analyzed. Papers were classified according to differences in TIC methodology, reference method, and subject characteristics. Pooling using the random‐effects method yielded an overall correlation of r= 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80‐0.84). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the reference method and the subject characteristics on the correlation coefficient. In cardiac patients, the correlation was significantly decreased. No influence of the applied TIC methodology was found. Conclusion: TIC might be useful for trend analysis of different groups of patients. However, since the reference method was of significant influence, differences between TIC and the reference method are incorrectly attributed to TIC alone.</description><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Cardiac Output</subject><subject>Cardiography, Impedance - methods</subject><subject>Electric Impedance</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart - physiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Stroke Volume</subject><issn>0077-8923</issn><issn>1749-6632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkF1v0zAUQC0EYmXwF5DFA2_J_JHENi-oq2BMdAOp4-vJcpzr1SVNip2I5t8vUaqJV_xiSz73XOkg9IaSlI7nYpdSkamkKDhLqVIq7Uqislymxydo8fj1FC0IESKRivEz9CLGHSGUyUw8R2eUcMForhZIL_ENdCYxjamH6CNuHf7al7WPW6jwpusrDxGv2sZCaHxzj7st4O-m9pXvhgm-27bBWG_x9f4AlRk5vDKh8u19MIft8BI9c6aO8Op0n6NvHz_crT4l6y9X16vlOrGZyGlSCCat5DZzZcUzQqwcn5kk1pHSFeC449LRwljnCM-ZAFfmkBcWFDE5U4afo7ez9xDaPz3ETu99tFDXpoG2j7pQknPFihF8N4M2tDEGcPoQ_N6EQVOip7x6p6eGemqop7z6lFcfx-HXpy19uYfqn9G55wi8n4G_vobhP9T69tdyQxkdDcls8LGD46PBhN-6EFzk-sftlb4k68_k5udGr_kDsM2bVA</recordid><startdate>199904</startdate><enddate>199904</enddate><creator>RAAIJMAKERS, E.</creator><creator>FAES, TH. J. C.</creator><creator>SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M.</creator><creator>GOOVAERTS, H. G.</creator><creator>HEETHAAR, R. M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199904</creationdate><title>A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography</title><author>RAAIJMAKERS, E. ; FAES, TH. J. C. ; SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M. ; GOOVAERTS, H. G. ; HEETHAAR, R. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4751-6728c83c4fbd3400c8c4f480cf0bf6ef3f38f16acff03527efb5e56ce90a529a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Cardiac Output</topic><topic>Cardiography, Impedance - methods</topic><topic>Electric Impedance</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart - physiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Stroke Volume</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>RAAIJMAKERS, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FAES, TH. J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOOVAERTS, H. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HEETHAAR, R. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>RAAIJMAKERS, E.</au><au>FAES, TH. J. C.</au><au>SCHOLTEN, R. J. P. M.</au><au>GOOVAERTS, H. G.</au><au>HEETHAAR, R. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Ann N Y Acad Sci</addtitle><date>1999-04</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>873</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>121</spage><epage>127</epage><pages>121-127</pages><issn>0077-8923</issn><eissn>1749-6632</eissn><abstract>: Our aim was to provide a meta‐analysis of the literature concerning the validation of thoracic impedance cardiography (TIC) and to explain variations in reported results from differences in the studies. One hundred fifty‐four studies (164 Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficients) comparing measurements of cardiac output or related parameters from TIC and a reference method were analyzed. Papers were classified according to differences in TIC methodology, reference method, and subject characteristics. Pooling using the random‐effects method yielded an overall correlation of r= 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.80‐0.84). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the reference method and the subject characteristics on the correlation coefficient. In cardiac patients, the correlation was significantly decreased. No influence of the applied TIC methodology was found. Conclusion: TIC might be useful for trend analysis of different groups of patients. However, since the reference method was of significant influence, differences between TIC and the reference method are incorrectly attributed to TIC alone.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>10372159</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0077-8923 |
| ispartof | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1999-04, Vol.873 (1), p.121-127 |
| issn | 0077-8923 1749-6632 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69833926 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Age Factors Analysis of Variance Cardiac Output Cardiography, Impedance - methods Electric Impedance Female Heart - physiology Humans Male Pregnancy Reproducibility of Results Stroke Volume |
| title | A Meta-analysis of Published Studies Concerning the Validity of Thoracic Impedance Cardiography |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T02%3A51%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Meta-analysis%20of%20Published%20Studies%20Concerning%20the%20Validity%20of%20Thoracic%20Impedance%20Cardiography&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Academy%20of%20Sciences&rft.au=RAAIJMAKERS,%20E.&rft.date=1999-04&rft.volume=873&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=121&rft.epage=127&rft.pages=121-127&rft.issn=0077-8923&rft.eissn=1749-6632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09458.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69833926%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69833926&rft_id=info:pmid/10372159&rfr_iscdi=true |