Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients—Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography

Levitov, Alexander, Frankel, Heidi L., Blaivas, Michael, Kirkpatrick, Andrew W., Su, Erik, Evans, David, Summerfield, Douglas T., Slonim, Anthony, Breitkreutz, Raoul, Price, Susanna, McLaughlin, Matthew, Marik, Paul E., Elbarbary, Mahmoud·2016·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU and equivalent care sites. Methods: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to rank the “levels” of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and to determine the “strength” of recommendations as either strong (strength class 1) or conditional/weak (strength class 2), thus generating six “grades” of recommendations (1A–1B–1C–2A–2B–2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND Appropriateness Method, incorporating the modified Delphi technique, was used in formulating recommendations related to terminology or definitions or in those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias. Results: Forty-five statements were considered. Among these statements, six did not achieve agreement based on RAND appropriateness method rules (majority of at least 70%). Fifteen statements were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The rest (24 statements) were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence and the required level of echo expertise of the intensivist. Key recommendations, listed by category, included the use of cardiac ultrasonography to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated (1B) patients, left ventricular (LV) systolic (1C) and diastolic (2C) function, acute cor pulmonale (ACP) (1C), pulmonary hypertension (1B), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (1C), right ventricular (RV) infarct (1C), the efficacy of fluid resuscitation (1C) and inotropic therapy (2C), presence of RV dysfunction (2C) in septic shock, the reason for cardiac arrest to assist in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1B–2C depending on rhythm), status in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (1C), the presence of pericardial effusion (1C), cardiac tamponade (1B), valvular dysfunction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury (2C), penetrating chest trauma (1C) and for use of contrast (1B–2C depending on indication). Finally, several recommendations were made regarding the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound in pediatric patients ranging from 1B for preload responsiveness to no recommendation for RV dysfunction. Conclusions: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several class 1 recommendations for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients and guiding appropriate integration of ultrasound into critical care practice.

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/ccm.0000000000001847

Cites

115 of 115 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 115 references

Cited by

See all 440

Metadata

Authors
Levitov, A., Frankel, H. L., Blaivas, M., Kirkpatrick, A. W., Su, E., Evans, D., Summerfield, D. T., Slonim, A., Breitkreutz, R., Price, S., McLaughlin, M., Marik, P. E., & Elbarbary, M.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2016-06
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
1206-1227
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4211058426
Cited by
440
References
115
FWCI
37.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients—Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001847
The paper
Levitov, A., Frankel, H. L., Blaivas, M., Kirkpatrick, A. W., Su, E., Evans, D., Summerfield, D. T., Slonim, A., Breitkreutz, R., Price, S., McLaughlin, M., Marik, P. E., & Elbarbary, M. (2016). Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients—Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001847

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.