Trial reportScientific reports2021
A new method for facilitating ultrasound-guided in-plane cannulation of the subclavian vein: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-hand guidewire introducer kit for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization: a proof-of-concept study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterisation with a needle guide (ELUSIVE): protocol for a randomised controlled study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation using open door technique - A technical report.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to propose a new method for facilitating needle-beam alignment ultrasound-guided in-plane catheterization of the subclavian vein (SCV). Three hundred patients were recruited, and ultrasound examination of the SCV was performed. Then, the patients were divided into two groups and SCV catheterization was performed: ultrasound-guided catheterization with the aiming method (group A) and ultrasound-guided catheterization with needle guide (group NG). The success rate, insertion time, number of skin breaks, number of needle redirections, needle visibility and rate of mechanical complications were documented and compared for each procedure. To depict the optimum long-axis view of the SCV, there was a 30° ± 7.3° angle (rotation) between the long axis of the ultrasound probe and the clavicle, while there was a 39° ± 7.4° angle (tilt) between the ultrasound beam plane and the right chest wall. The aiming method was associated with fewer skin breaks [(mean (IQR): 1 (1-1) times vs 1 (1-2) times, P = 0.009], a shorter time to cannulation [(mean (IQR): 39 (32-48.5) s vs 48 (44-54.8) s, P = 0.000] and more needle redirections [(mean (IQR): 0 (0-1) vs 0 (0-0), P = 0.000]. There were no differences between group A and group NG in the overall success rate, first puncture success rate, needle visibility or mechanical complication rate. In conclusion, during ultrasound-guided in-plane catheterization of the SCV, the aiming method provides comparable needle-beam alignment with a lower cannulation time than the needle guide technique.
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.