Trial reportBMC medical education2013
Prepackaged central line kits reduce procedural mistakes during central line insertion: a randomized controlled prospective trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of cognitive load assessment tools suitable for clinicians performing REBOA.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- An unusual cause for a temporary left-sided cerebral perfusion deficit- and left-sided hemiplegia.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2024Article
- The use of procedural kits may reduce unscheduled central line dressing changes: A matched pre-post intervention study.Journal of infection prevention · 2024Article
- Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement for Central Venous Catheterization and Management 2020.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Working memory is limited: improving knowledge transfer by optimising simulation through cognitive load theory.BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2016Review
- Eliminating guidewire retention during ultrasound guided central venous catheter insertion via an educational program, a modified CVC set, and a drape with reminder stickers.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2016Article
- The role of packaging size on contamination rates during simulated presentation to a sterile field.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral line catheter insertion is a complex procedure with a high cognitive load for novices. Providing a prepackaged all-inclusive kit is a simple measure that may reduce the cognitive load. We assessed whether the use of prepackaged all-inclusive central line insertion kits reduces procedural mistakes during central line catheter insertion by novices.
methodsThirty final year medical students and recently qualified physicians were randomized into two equal groups. One group used a prepackaged all-inclusive kit and the other used a standard kit containing only the central vein catheter and all other separately packaged components provided in a materials cart. The procedure was videotaped and analyzed by two blinded raters using a checklist. Both groups performed central line catheter insertion on a manikin, assisted by nursing students.
resultsThe prepackaged kit group outperformed the standard kit group in four of the five quality indicators: procedure duration (26:26 ± 3:50 min vs. 31:27 ± 5:57 min, p = .01); major technical mistakes (3.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6, p = .03); minor technical mistakes (5.2 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 3.2, p = .01); and correct steps (83 ± 5% vs. 75 ± 11%, p = .02). The difference for breaches of aseptic technique (1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.0 ± 3.6, p = .06) was not statistically significant.
conclusionsPrepackaged all-inclusive kits for novices improved the procedure quality and saved staff time resources in a controlled simulation environment. Future studies are needed to address whether central line kits also improve patient safety in hospital settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.