Key result
A noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance showed excellent correlation with conventional cardiac catheterization methods (r = 0.85).
Why the study?
Does a noninvasive technique using ultrasound and sphygmomanometry accurately measure systemic vascular resistance compared to conventional cardiac catheterization?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Does a noninvasive technique using ultrasound and sphygmomanometry accurately measure systemic vascular resistance compared to conventional cardiac catheterization?
Effect estimate: r = 0.85
A noninvasive technique combining ultrasound and sphygmomanometry provides accurate measurements of systemic vascular resistance comparable to invasive cardiac catheterization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support noninvasive SVR research; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Stefadouros et al. (1973) reported a cross-sectional. Noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance vs. Conventional methods at cardiac catheterization was evaluated on Correlation between noninvasive and conventional systemic vascular resistance (r = 0.85). A noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance showed excellent correlation with conventional cardiac catheterization methods (r = 0.85).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: