Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulse Pressure Variations for the Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness: A “Gray Zone” Approach

Open access
Cannesson, Maxime, Le Manach, Yannick, Hofer, Christoph K., Goarin, Jean Pierre, Lehot, Jean-Jacques, Vallet, Benoît, Tavernier, Benoît·2011·Anesthesiology

Abstract

Background: Respiratory arterial pulse pressure variations (PPV) are the best predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients during general anesthesia. However, previous studies were performed in a small number of patients and determined a single cutoff point to make clinical discrimination. The authors sought to test the predictive value of PPV in a large, multicenter study and to express it using a gray zone approach. Methods: The authors studied 413 patients during general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation in four centers. PPV, central venous pressure, and cardiac output were recorded before and after volume expansion (VE). Response to VE was defined as more than 15% increase in cardiac output after VE. The following approaches were used to determine the gray zones: resampled and two-graph receiver operator characteristic curves. The impact of changes in the benefit-risk balance of VE on the gray zone was also evaluated. Results: The authors observed 209 responders (51%) and 204 nonresponders (49%) to VE. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92) for PPV, compared with 0.57 (95% CI: 0.54-0.59) for central venous pressure (P < 10). The gray zone approach identified a range of PPV values (between 9% and 13%) for which fluid responsiveness could not be predicted reliably. These PPV values were seen in 98 (24%) patients. Changes in the cost ratio of VE moderately affected the gray zone limits. Conclusion: Despite a strong predictive value, PPV may be inconclusive (between 9% and 13%) in approximately 25% of patients during general anesthesia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aln.0b013e318225b80a

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Cannesson, M., Le Manach, Y., Hofer, C. K., Goarin, J. P., Lehot, J.-J., Vallet, B., & Tavernier, B.
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2011-08-01
Volume
115
Issue
2
Pages
231-241
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994385356
Cited by
554
References
29
FWCI
38.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulse Pressure Variations for the Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness: A “Gray Zone” Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e318225b80a
The paper
Cannesson, M., Le Manach, Y., Hofer, C. K., Goarin, J. P., Lehot, J.-J., Vallet, B., & Tavernier, B. (2011). Assessing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulse Pressure Variations for the Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness: A “Gray Zone” Approach. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318225b80a

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.