Table 2.

Diagnostic performance of pulse pressure variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients with tidal volume ⩽8 mL kg⁻¹ from included studies.

Order	Authors	Year	tp	n1	tn	n2	nt	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	Threshold, %	Method use to measure PPV	Fluid responsiveness rate, %
1	De Backer et al.16	2005	7	18	10	15	33	0.39 (0.20-0.61)	0.65 (0.42-0.85)	0.71 (0.62-0.80)	PPV ⩾ 12	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	55.00a
2	Huang et al.24	2008	7	10	11	12	22	0.70 (0.40-0.89)	0.92 (0.65-0.99)	0.76	PPV ⩾ 11.8	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	45.45
3	Auler et al.25	2008	38	39	19	20	59	0.97 (0.87-1.00)	0.95 (0.76-0.99)	0.98 (0.97-0.99)	PPV ⩾ 12	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	66.10
4	Vallée et al.26	2009	6	19	17	23	42	0.32 (0.15-0.54)	0.74 (0.54-0.87)	0.63 (0.45-0.81)	PPV ⩾ 15	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	46.42a
5	Muller et al.18	2010	25	41	15	16	57	0.61 (0.46-0.74)	0.94 (0.72-0.99)	0.77 (0.65-0.90)	PPV ⩾ 7	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	72.00
6	Lakhal et al.19	2011	19	26	33	39	65	0.73 (0.54-0.86)	0.85 (0.70-0.93)	0.75 (0.62-0.85)	PPV ⩾ 5	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	40.00
7	Oliveira-Costa et al.27	2012	9	17	19	20	37	0.53 (0.31-0.74)	0.95 (0.76-0.99)	0.74 (0.56-0.90)	PPV ⩾ 10	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	44.73
8	Monnet et al.17	2012	14	15	4	13	28	0.93 (0.79-99)0.	0.31 (0.13-58)0.	0.69 (0.68-70)0.	PPV ⩾ 4	Analysis with PiCCO2	53.57
9	Yazigi et al.28	2012	33	41	14	19	60	0.80 (0.66-0.90)	0.74 (0.51-0.88)	0.85	PPV >11.5	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	68.33
10	Cecconi et al.29	2012	10	12	14	19	31	0.83 (0.55-0.95)	0.74 (0.51-0.88)	0.87 (0.76-0.99)	PPV >13	Analysis with LiDCO	39.00
11	Freitas et al.30	2013	17	19	19	21	40	0.89 (0.69-0.97)	0.90 (0.71-0.97)	0.91 (0.82-1.0)	PPV ⩾ 6.5	Analysis with computer software	47.50
12	Trepte et al.31	2013	25	41	25	31	72	0.61 (0.46-0.74)	0.81 (0.64-0.91)	0.70 (0.21-0.85)	PPV ⩾ 10.1	Analysis with PiCCO2	57.00
13	Song et al.32	2014	17	23	12	17	40	0.74 (0.54-0.87)	0.71 (0.47-0.87)	0.74 (0.58-0.90)	PPV ⩾ 13	Analysis with computer software	57.50
14	Ibarra-Estrada et al.33	2015	15	30	23	29	59	0.5 (0.33-0.67)	0.79 (0.62-0.90)	0.63	PPV ⩾ 14	Analysis of the monitored arterial tracing	50.80
15	Liu et al.34	2016	35	52	37	44	96	0.67 (0.54-0.78)	0.84 (0.71-0.92)	0.78 (0.69-0.86)	PPV ⩾ 10	Analysis with PiCCO	54.16
16	Myatra et al.35	2017	12	16	13	14	30	0.75 (0.51-90)0.	0.93 (0.69-99)0.	0.91 (0.81-0)1.	PPV ⩾ 11.5	Analysis with computer software	53.33
17	Biais et al.36	2017	12	20	18	21	41	0.60 (0.36-0.78)	0.86 (0.65-0.95)	0.75 (0.60-0.90)	PPV >9	Analysis with computer ProAQT	48.78
18	Biais et al.37	2017	15	28	41	60	88	0.54 (0.39-0.78	0.68 (0.56-0.79)	0.65 (0.53-0.78)	PPV >10	Analysis with computer Pulsioflex	31.81
19	Yonis et al.38	2017	3	9	8	10	19	0.33 (0.12-0.65)	0.8 (0.49-0.94)	0.49 (0.21-0.77)	PPV >10	Analysis with computer software	47.36

Abbreviations: tn, true negative; tp, true positive; PPV, pulse pressure variation.

Values are expressed as pooled value (95% confidence interval). AUC; area under curve; n1, number of patients who were positive fluid responsiveness; n2, number of patients who were negative fluid responsiveness; nt, number total of patients included.

^aCalculated.