Evidence Hub

Diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation and plethysmography variability index for prediction of fluid responsiveness in anesthetized and mechanically ventilated dogs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

P. Donati, L. Tarragona, I. S. Cordero, J. Franco, C. E. Liquitay, D. Portela, J. Araos, F. Staffieri et al.

Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 2025

5 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variation (PPV), plethysmographic variability index (PVI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) for predicting fluid responsiveness in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

ANIMALS

Anesthetized dogs undergoing surgery, in critical care, or in experimental settings.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4DBGP). Databases (Medline, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science and Scopus) were searched from inception to 14 April 2025. Study quality was assessed using standardized criteria. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Likelihood ratios (LR), diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were generated. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Risk of bias was high in all studies of PPV, PVI and SVV. In four clinical PPV studies, sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.65-0.97), specificity 0.97 (95% CI: 0.83-0.99), LR+ 30.99 (95% CI: 5.25-182.85), LR- 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02-0.40) and DOR 263 (95% CI: 26-1890). In five experimental PPV studies, sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87), specificity 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91), LR+ 4.63 (95% CI: 2.41-8.88), LR- 0.27 (95% CI: 0.16-0.46) and DOR 17 (95% CI: 6-48). For PVI (five studies), sensitivity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.89), specificity 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78-0.90) and DOR 29…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free