ArticleBMC pediatrics2020
Evaluating practioners' preferences regarding vascular emergency access in newborn infants in the delivery room: a national survey.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intravenous and intraosseous administration of vasopressin and epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated neonatal piglets.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- How consistent are recent neonatal resuscitation guidelines?Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- First attempt success rate of intraosseous access in preterm infants and neonates: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- Intraosseous access in neonates is feasible and safe - An analysis of a prospective nationwide surveillance study in Germany.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Umbilical venous catheterisation: emergency central venous access which saves lives in coarctation of the aorta.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVenous access during neonatal emergencies in the delivery room (DR) can be accomplished through an umbilical venous catheter (UVC) or an intraosseous (IO) access. Preference of one over the other is unclear. We wanted to evaluate practioners' views.
methodsAn anonymous online questionnaire was circulated to healthcare professionals with different background and experience, all working in neonatal intensive care units in Germany. The web-based survey consisted of 13 questions and data collection was performed using an online tool.
resultsWe received 502 completed questionnaires, 152 (30%) were from neonatologists, the remainder from residents, fellows and neonatal nurses. For resuscitation of term newborns in the DR 61% of neonatologists vs. 53% of non-neonatologists were in favour of UVC instead of an IO as an emergency access. UVC placement was rated (very) difficult to impossible by 60% of neonatologists and 90% of non-neonatologists (p < 0.05). All respondents cited lack of experience as the main reason for feeling reluctant to place an UVC or IO access, the latter only being taken into consideration in term infants.
conclusionsUVC placement in the DR is rated more often difficult to use by non-neonatologists than by neonatologists, apparently related to lack of experience. IO access was only considered for resuscitating term infants due to lacking practice and missing approval for birth weights < 3000 g. Frequent training might improve these clinical skills.
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.