Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26630579›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study.

Niels Hammer, Robert Möbius, André Gries, Björn Hossfeld, Ingo Bechmann, Michael Bernhard

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sternal Intraosseous Devices: Review of the Literature.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

6 authors.

Niels HammerDepartment of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Robert MöbiusInstitute of Anatomy, University of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany.
André GriesEmergency Department, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Björn HossfeldDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Section Emergency Medicine, Federal Armed Forces Medical Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Ingo BechmannInstitute of Anatomy, University of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany.
Michael BernhardEmergency Department, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntraosseous infusion is recommended if peripheral venous access fails for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other medical emergencies. The aim of this study, using body donors, was to compare a semi-automatic (EZ-IO®) device at two insertion sites and a sternal intraosseous infusion device (FASTR™).

methodsTwenty-seven medical students being inexperienced first-time users were randomized into three groups using EZ-IO and FASTR. The following data were evaluated: attempts required for successful placement, insertion time and flow rates with and without external pressure to the infusion.

resultsThe first-pass insertion success of the EZ-IO tibia, EZ-IO humerus and FASTR was 91%, 77%, and 95%, respectively. Insertion times (MW ± SD) did not show significant differences with 17 ± 7 (EZ-IO tibia) vs. 29 ± 42 (EZ-IO humerus) vs. 33 ± 21 (FASTR), respectively. One-minute flow rates using external pressures between 0 mmHg and 300 mmHg ranged between 27 ± 5 to 69 ± 54 ml/min (EZ-IO tibia), 16 ± 3 to 60 ± 44 ml/min (EZ-IO humerus) and 53 ± 2 to 112 ± 47 ml/min (FASTR), respectively. Concerning pressure-related increases in flow rates, negligible correlations were found for the EZ-IO tibia in all time frames (c = 0.107-0.366; p ≤ 0.013), moderate positive correlations were found for the EZ-IO humerus after 5 minutes (c = 0.489; p = 0.021) and strong positive correlations were found for the FASTR in all time frames (c = 0.63-0.80; p ≤ 0.007). Post-hoc statistical power was 0.62 with the given sample size.

conclusionsThe experiments with first-time users applying EZ-IO and FASTR in body donors indicate that both devices may be effective intraosseous infusion devices, likely suitable for fluid resuscitation using a pressure bag. Variations in flow rate may limit their reliability. Larger sample sizes will prospectively be required to substantiate our findings.

Indexed as

EmergenciesAdultCadaverCardiopulmonary ResuscitationEmergency Medical ServicesEquipment DesignFluid TherapyHumansInfusions, IntraosseousResuscitationRheologyTissue Donors

Identifiers

PMID26630579
PMCPMC4668027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.