Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2017
Comparison of four different intraosseous access devices during simulated pediatric resuscitation. A randomized crossover manikin trial.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2021Trial
- [Intraosseous access in infants-development of an anatomical training model].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- When to choose intraosseous access in prehospital trauma care: A registry-based study from the Israel Defense Forces.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2025Article
- Factors influencing the success and complications of intraosseous access in pediatric patients-a prospective nationwide surveillance study in Germany.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Physician preferences associated with powered intraosseous access systems: Safety features, reliability, and ease of use.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Article
- [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the success rate, procedure time, and user satisfaction of pediatric NIO™ compared to Pediatric BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices. This was a randomized, crossover manikin trial with 87 paramedics. The correct location of intraosseous access when using NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and was respectively 100, 90, 90, and 90%. The time required to obtain intravascular access (time T1) in the case of NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and amounted to 9 s [IQR, 8-12] for NIO, 12 s [IQR, 9-16] for BIG, 13.5 s [IQR, 11-17] for the EZ-IO, and 15 s [IQR, 13-19] for Jamshidi. The paramedics evaluated each device on the subjective ease with which they performed the procedures. The intraosseous device, which proved the easiest to use was NIO, which in the case of CPR received a median rating of 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-1.5) points.
conclusionOur study found that NIO® is superior to BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi. NIO® achieved the highest first attempt success rate. NIO® also required the least time to insert and easiest to operate even by novice users. Further study is needed to test our findings in cadavers or human subjects. Based on our findings, NIO® is a promising intraosseous device for use in pediatric resuscitation. What is Known: • Venous access in acutely ill pediatric patients, such as those undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is needed for prompt administration of drugs and fluids. • Intraosseous access is recommended by American Heart Association and European Resuscitation council if vascular access is not readily obtainable to prevent delay in treatment. What is New: • This simulated pediatric resuscitation compared performance of four commercially available pediatric intraosseous devices in a manikin model. • NIO® outperformed BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi in first attempt success rates and time of procedure among novice users.
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.