ArticleSpringerPlus2014
Measuring competence in central venous catheterization: a systematic-review.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process-oriented feedback for ultrasound-guided central venous access training: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Assessing anatomical knowledge and confidence in central venous catheter insertion: a single-center cross-sectional study among physicians in a resource-limited setting.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Retrospective analysis of subclavian venous catheterization procedures performed with ultrasound guidance by anesthesiology residents in the intensive care unit.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Guided, motor, and mental imagery adjuncts to teaching central venous access.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- Delphi Method to Achieve Clinical Consensus for a BPMN Representation of the Central Venous Access Placement for Training Purposes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Design and Evaluation of a Low-Cost Bronchoscopy-Guided Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy Simulator.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2019Article
- Using Modified Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) to assess undergraduate medical students.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2018Article
- Central venous catheterization training: current perspectives on the role of simulation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Review
- Using the Entrustable Professional Activities Framework in the Assessment of Procedural Skills.Journal of graduate medical education · 2017Article
- An experimental study on the impact of clinical interruptions on simulated trainee performances of central venous catheterization.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2017Article
- Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study.Annals of surgical innovation and research · 2016Article
- Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances.Medical education · 2015Article
- Performance of central venous catheterization by medical students: a retrospective study of students' logbooks.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCentral venous catheterization is a complex procedural skill. This study evaluates existing published tools on this procedure and systematically summarizes key competencies for the assessment of this technical skill.
methodsUsing a previously published meta-analysis search strategy, we conducted a systematic review of published assessment tools using the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent investigators abstracted information on tool content and characteristics.
resultsTwenty-five studies were identified assessing a total of 147 items. Tools used for assessment at the bedside (clinical tools) had a higher % of items representing "preparation" and "infection control" than tools used for assessment using simulation (67 ± 26% vs. 32 ± 26%; p = 0.003 for "preparation" and 60 ± 41% vs. 11 ± 17%; p = 0.002 for "infection control", respectively). Simulation tools had a higher % of items on "procedural competence" than clinical tools (60 ± 36% vs. 17 ± 15%; p = 0.002). Items in the domains of "Team working" and "Communication and working with the patient" were frequently under-represented.
conclusionThis study presents a comprehensive review of existing checklist items for the assessment of central venous catheterization. Although many key competencies are currently assessed by existing published tools, some domains may be under-represented by select tools.
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.