Observational studyScientific reports2019
Ultrasound- versus landmark-guided subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective observational study from a tertiary referral hospital.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of ipsilateral tilt position on the cross-sectional area of the subclavian vein and the clinical performance of subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective randomized trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Trial
- Seeing Artery and VEin Simultaneously in the long axis (SAVES) for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular axillary/subclavian vein cannulation: A retrospective analysis.Journal of intensive medicine · 2025Article
- Central Venous Catheter Misplacement Presenting With Parotid Gland Swelling: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Subclavian Vein Cannulation via Supraclavicular or Infraclavicular Route Which is Better? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Operator gender differences in major mechanical complications after central line insertions: a subgroup analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Lung deflation while placing a subclavian vein catheter: Our experience in minimizing the risk of pneumothorax.PloS one · 2023Article
- Ultrasound Localization of Nitinol Wire of Sub-Wavelength Dimension.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Comparative efficacy of supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach of subclavian vein cannulation under ultrasound guidance: A randomised clinical trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Comparison of success rate of abducted and neutral arm position for right infraclavicular subclavian vein cannulation under real-time ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing elective neurosurgery under general anesthesia.Annals of cardiac anaesthesiaArticle
- Venous access devices (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This was a single-center, observational, prospective study designed to compare the effectiveness of a real-time, ultrasound- with landmark-guided technique for subclavian vein cannulation. Two groups of 74 consecutive patients each underwent subclavian vein catheterization. One group included patients from intensive care unit, studied by using an ultrasound-guided technique. The other group included patients from surgery or emergency units, studied by using a landmark technique. The primary outcome for comparison between techniques was the success rate of catheterization. Secondary outcomes were the number of attempts, cannulation failure, and mechanical complications. Although there was no difference in total success rate between ultrasound-guided and landmark groups (71 vs. 68, p = 0.464), the ultrasound-guided technique was more frequently successful at first attempt (64 vs. 30, p < 0.001) and required less attempts (1 to 2 vs. 1 to 6, p < 0.001) than landmark technique. Moreover, the ultrasound-guided technique was associated with less complications (2 vs. 13, p < 0.001), interruptions of mechanical ventilation (1 vs. 57, p < 0.001), and post-procedure chest X-ray (43 vs. 62, p = 0.001). In comparison with landmark-guided technique, the use of an ultrasound-guided technique for subclavian catheterization offers advantages in terms of reduced number of attempts and complications.
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.