ArticleBMC anesthesiology2013
Functional evaluation and practice survey to guide purchasing of intravenous cannulae.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are wide variations in the physical designs and attributes between different brands of intravenous cannulae that makes product selection and purchasing difficult. In a systematic assessment to guide purchasing, we assessed two cannulae - Cannula P and I. We proposed that the results of in-vitro performance testing of the cannulae would be associated with preference after clinical comparison.
methodsWe designed an observer-blinded randomised head-to-head trial between the 18, 20 and 22 gauge versions of Cannula P and I. Our primary end-point was pressure (mmHg) generated during various flow rates and our secondary end-point was the force (Newton) required to slide the catheter away from the needle. This was followed by a prospective electronic survey following a two-week clinical trial period.
resultsThe mean difference in resistance between Cannula P and I was: 307 mmHg.L-1.hr-1 (95% CI: 289-325, p < 0.001) for 22G; 135 mmHg.L-1.hr-1 (95% CI: 125-144, p < 0.001) for 20G; and 27 mmHg.L-1.hr-1 (95% CI: 26-28, p < 0.001) for 18G. The mean difference in the force needed to displace the catheter away from its needle was: 1.41 N (95% CI: 1.09-1.73, p < 0.001) for 22G; 0.19 N (95% CI: -0.04-0.41, p = 0.12) for 20G; and 1.96 N (95% CI: 1.40-2.52, p < 0.001) for 18G. After a trial period, all 16 anaesthetist who had used both cannulae preferred Cannula I to P.
conclusionsThe evaluation process described here could help hospitals improve efficient product selection and purchasing decisions for intravenous cannulae.
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.