Trial reportPloS one2020
Shallow-angle needle guide for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization: A randomized controlled crossover simulation study (CONSORT).
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedle guides for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization facilitate successful cannulation. The ability of a needle guide to prevent a posterior vein wall injury which may secondarily induce lethal complications, is unknown. Previous studies showed that a shallow angle of approach may reduce the incidence of posterior wall injuries. We developed a novel needle guide with a shallow angle of approach for ultrasound-guided venous catheterization and examined whether this needle guide reduces the incidence of posterior wall injuries compared to a conventional needle guide and free-hand placement in a simulated vein.
methodsThis study was a randomized crossover-controlled trial. The primary outcome was the rate of posterior vein wall injuries. Participants had a didactic lecture about three ultrasound-guided techniques using the short-axis out-of-plane approach, including free-hand (P-free), a commercial needle guide (P-com), and a novel needle guide (P-sha). The view inside a simulated vein was recorded during venipuncture.
resultsThirty-five residents participated in this study. Posterior vein wall injuries occurred in 66% using P-free, 60% using P-com, and 0% using P-sha (p< 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of posterior vein wall injuries between P-free and P-com.
conclusionsUse of a shallow angle of approach needle guide resulted in a lower rate of posterior vein injuries during venipuncture of a simulated vein compared with other techniques using a steeper angle techniques.
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.