Value of variation of end-tidal carbon dioxide for predicting fluid responsiveness during the passive leg raising test in patients with mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Summary of results of the studies included in this meta-analysis

First author/Year of publication	Sample size	Cutoff value (increase in percentage or absolute value)	Subject numbers could be calculated				Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUROC (95%CI)
First author/Year of publication	Sample size	Cutoff value (increase in percentage or absolute value)	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUROC (95%CI)
Monge/2012 [18]	37	5%	19	1	2	19	90.5	93.7	0.94 (0.82–0.99)
Monnet/2013 [17]	40	5%	15	0	6	15	71	100	0.93 (0.81–0.99)
Zang/2013 [30]	42	5%	21	2	3	21	88	88.2	0.90 (0.775–1.0)
Wang/2015 [31]	48	5%	26	1	8	26	75.8	93.4	0.849 (0.739–0.93)
Toupin/2016 [32]	90	2 mmHg	21	19	7	21	75	70	0.80 (0.70–0.90)
Yao/2016 [33]	41	5.8%	16	2	5	16	76.2	90	0.875 (0.769–0.981)

AUROC, Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve; CI, confidence interval; FN, false negative; FP, false positive; NA, not available; TN, true negative; TP, true positive

ISSN: 1364-8535