Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20628712›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2010

[Intraosseous access for in-hospital emergencies. Intensive medical care case study].

M Werner, H-P Daniel, J Hoitz

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M WernerAbteilung für Anästhesie, Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Hamburg, Lesserstr. 180, 22049 Hamburg, Deutschland. mariuswerner@bundeswehr.org
H-P Daniel
J Hoitz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the release of the 2005 resuscitation guidelines intraosseous infusion has been recognized as the favorite alternative vascular access in emergency patients. It is no longer restricted to paediatric emergencies but is also considered the vascular access of choice for adult patients with difficult venous access. Intraosseous access has been used in an increasing proportion of patients especially in an out-of-hospital emergency care setting while only limited experience exists for in-hospital usage of this technique. This article reports on a case of intraosseous access performed in a critically ill patient directly after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to difficult peripheral venous access. Despite the extensive medical resources available in the ICU (i.e. central venous catheterization) less invasive means were used to render appropriate care. Based on this case different strategies of critical care and possible improvements will be discussed. Intraosseous infusion should be regarded as an infrequently needed but potentially life-saving procedure that is still too often considered as an option at later stages during in-hospital emergency care.

Indexed as

Critical CareEmergency Medical ServicesInfusions, IntraosseousAgedCatheters, IndwellingCritical IllnessGlasgow Coma ScaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusPneumonia, StaphylococcalResuscitationTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.