ArticleSaudi medical journal2020
Use of ultrasound guidance in central venous catheter placement by emergency physicians in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter (USG-CVC) placement rate of emergency physicians (EPs) in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
methodsA cross-sectional survey study regarding the respondents' demographic profiles, formal and informal training in USG-CVC placement, experiences, and attitudes towards the procedure was emailed to all EPs registered with the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) between October and December 2018.
resultsIn total, 234/350 SCFHS-registered EPs completed the survey; the response rate was 66.9%. Most respondents (70.5%) were board-certified in emergency medicine (EM). Ninety percent indicated that US device for CVC placement assistance was available. Most EPs (78.2%) had performed USG-CVC placement; the US usage rate correlated significantly with recent graduation from residency (p=0.048). In total, 83.3% received formal training during residency. Of the 234 respondents, 53.8% felt extremely comfortable with CVC placement with USG and 19.7% without USG (p less than 0.01). Nevertheless, most respondents desired further USG-CVC training.
conclusionDespite existing evidence and a consensus on its superiority over the landmark technique, USG-CVC placement has not been adopted by a small proportion of EPs into clinical practice. Formal training, education, and institutional provision of permanent onsite US machines may address any barriers.
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.