ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2019
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about ultrasound-guided vascular access?
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Duplex ultrasound for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about congenital vascular anomalies and hemangiomas? A narrative review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasonography is currently used in investigating many vascular diseases, especially for guiding vascular access.
objectiveThe objective here was to summarize the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ultrasound-guided vascular access as an intervention approach. DESIGN AND
settingReview of SRs, conducted in the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery of Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
methodsA broad search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to retrieve any Cochrane SRs that assessed the effects of ultrasound guidance as a therapeutic approach towards performing any vascular access. The key characteristics and results of all the reviews included were summarized and discussed.
resultsThree SRs on venous access at all ages and one review on arterial access in pediatric participants were included. There was low to moderate certainty of evidence that ultrasound increased the success rate from the first puncture and the overall success rate of the procedure; and reduced the total rate of perioperative and postoperative adverse events, number of punctures, time needed to achieve success and rate of failure to place catheters.
conclusionEvidence of low to moderate quality showed that ultrasound-guided vascular access seems to reduce the total rate of perioperative and postoperative complications/adverse effects, number of punctures, time needed to achieve success and rate of failure to perform venous catheterization in adults and arterial punctures in children. There is a lack of information regarding ultrasound-guided arterial puncture in adults. Further studies are still imperative for reaching solid conclusions, especially regarding arterial ultrasound-guided access.
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.