ArticleAEM education and training2021
Point-of-care Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation in Ultrasound Nonexperts.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central venous cannulation in critically ill patients: guidelines of the Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Guideline
- Point-of-care ultrasound for central venous catheter confirmation and complications in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Pooled it
- Rapid perfusion ultrasonography in the assessment of axillary venous catheter tip position: a prospective observational study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Response to "Comments on Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model".The western journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Protocol for DRAUP: a deimplementation programme to decrease routine chest radiographs after central venous catheter insertion.BMJ open quality · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEmerging evidence suggests that chest radiography (CXR) following central venous catheter (CVC) placement is unnecessary when point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used to confirm catheter position and exclude pneumothorax. However, few providers have adopted this practice, and it is unknown what contributing factors may play a role in this lack of adoption, such as ultrasound experience. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS to confirm CVC position and exclude a pneumothorax after brief education and training of nonexperts.
methodsWe performed a prospective cohort study in a single academic medical center to determine the diagnostic characteristics of a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after brief training performed by POCUS nonexperts. POCUS nonexperts (emergency medicine senior residents and critical care fellows) independently performed a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after a 30-minute didactic training. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol for malposition and pneumothorax detection. Secondary outcomes were efficiency and feasibility of adequate image acquisition, adjudicated by POCUS experts.
resultsTwenty-six POCUS nonexperts collected data on 190 patients in the final analysis. There were five (2.5%) CVC malpositions and six (3%) pneumothoraxes on CXR. The positive likelihood ratios of POCUS for malposition detection and pneumothorax were 12.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.26 to 46.69) and 3.41 (95% CI = 0.51 to 22.76), respectively. The accuracy of POCUS for pneumothorax detection compared to CXR was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.96) and the sensitivity was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.64). The median (interquartile range) time for CVC confirmation was lower for POCUS (9 minutes [8.5-9.5 minutes]) compared to CXR (29 minutes [1-269 minutes]; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.01). Adequate protocol image acquisition was achieved in 76% of the patients.
conclusionThirty-minute training of POCUS in nonexperts demonstrates adequate diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and feasibility of POCUS-guided CVC position confirmation, but not exclusion of pneumothorax.
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.