↓ Skip to main content

Is intra-bladder pressure measurement a reliable indicator for raised intra-abdominal pressure? A prospective comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is intra-bladder pressure measurement a reliable indicator for raised intra-abdominal pressure? A prospective comparative study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0539-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdulla Ahmed Al-Abassi, Azan Saleh Al Saadi, Faisal Ahmed

Abstract

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) can be measured by several indirect methods; however, the urinary bladder is largely preferred. The aim of this study was to compare intra-bladder pressure (IBP) at different levels of IAPs and assess its reliability as an indirect method for IAP measurement. We compared IBP with IAP in twenty-one patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. Measurements were recorded at increasing levels of insufflation pressures to approximately 22 mmHg. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to establish the relationship between the two pressure measurements and Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the limits of agreement between the two methods of measurements. The urinary bladder pressures reflected well the pressures in the abdominal cavity. Pearson correlation coefficient showed a good correlation between the two measurement techniques (r = 0.966, p < 0.0001) and Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the 95% limits of agreement between the two methods ranged from - 2.83 to 2.64. This range is accepted both clinically and according to the recommendations of the World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS). Our study showed that IBP measurement is a simple, minimally invasive method that may reliably estimates IAP in patients placed in supine position. Measurements for pressures higher than 12 mmHg may be less reliable. When applied clinically, this should alert the clinician to take safety measures to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Engineering 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,007
of 1,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,990
of 328,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#40
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,516 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.