Skip to main content

Table 2 QUADAS-2 score assessment of the included studies

From: Functional hemodynamic tests: a systematic review and a metanalysis on the reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of the mini-fluid challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness

Studies

Patient selection

Index test

Reference standard

Flow and timing

Final score

Final risk

Risk of bias

Applicability judgments

TOT

Risk of bias

Applicability judgments

TOT

Risk of bias

Applicability judgments

TOT

Operating room

Guinot et al. [33]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

9

L

Biais et al. [34]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

3

Low

1

10

M

Biais et al. [35]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Guinot et al. [36]

Unclear

2

High

3

5

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

12

H

Preisman et al. [37]

High

3

High

3

6

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

11

H

Biais et al. [38]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

11

H

De Broca et al. [39]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Intensive care unit

Wu et al. [40]

Smorenberg et al. [41]

UncleaR

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Low

1

High

3

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

11

H

Muller et al. [29]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Monge Garcia et al. [42]

Low

1

Unclear

2

3

Low

1

Unclear

2

3

High

3

Low

1

4

High

3

13

H

Perel et al. [28]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

11

H

Yonis et al. [43]

Unclear

2

High

3

5

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

11

H

Xiao-ting et al. [44]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

10

H

Mallat et al. [45]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

9

M

Georges et al. [46]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

9

M

Wilkman et al. [47]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

High

3

11

H

Jozwiak et al. [48]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Monnet et al. [23]

High

3

Low

1

4

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

9

M

Myatra et al. [49]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

Monnet et al. [50]

Unclear

2

Low

1

3

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

Low

1

2

Low

1

8

L

  1. For each study, the risk of bias is calculated as the sum of the four categories; we calculated the sum of these points. L = studies showing a score below the median of the sums of all studies. H = studies showing a score above the median of the sums of all studies. M = studies showing a score equal to the median of the sums of all studies