ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2021
Comparison of intraosseous access and central venous catheterization in Chinese adult emergency patients: A prospective, multicenter, and randomized study.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of intraosseous access for trauma resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Pooled it
- Does an instructional video as a stand-alone tool promote the acquisition of practical clinical skills? A randomised simulation research trial of skills acquisition and short-term retention.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Time delay and risk of toxicity of intraosseous anaesthesia use for awake intraosseous access in children.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Article
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is challenging to establish peripheral intravenous access in adult critically patients. This study aims to compare the success rate of the first attempt, procedure time, operator satisfaction with the used devices, pain score, and complications between intraosseous (IO) access and central venous catheterization (CVC) in critically ill Chinese patients.
methodsIn this prospective clustered randomized controlled trial, eight hospitals were randomly divided into either the IO group or the CVC group. Patients who needed emergency vascular access were included. From April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, each center included 12 patients. We recorded the data mentioned above.
resultsA total of 96 patients were enrolled in the study. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, age, body mass index, or operator satisfaction with the used devices. The success rates of the first attempt and the procedure time were statistically significant between the IO group and the CVC group (91.7% vs. 50.0%,
conclusionsIO access is a safe, rapid, and effective technique for gaining vascular access in critically ill adults with inaccessible peripheral veins in the emergency departments.
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.