ArticleThe journal of vascular access2024
Sex differences in appropriate insertion depth for intraosseous access in adults: An exploratory radiologic single-center study.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraosseous access is a recommended alternative to venous access in emergencies. For its application, knowledge of the correct insertion depth is indispensable. We aimed to determine sex-specific differences on the appropriate insertion depth for intraosseous access in adults at the insertion sites most frequently used, namely the proximal and distal tibia and the proximal humerus.
methodsIn this exploratory retrospective study, we measured thickness of soft tissue cover, cortex and cancellous bone along the puncture line on magnetic resonance images or computed tomography scans. Inclusion criteria were both sexes, 18-90 years of age and appropriate image quality. Primary outcome was the appropriate insertion depth to reach the cancellous bone for each sex. This was defined as the corridor between (i) the sum of the soft tissue cover and the cortex and (ii) the sum of (i) plus the diameter of the cancellous bone. Secondary outcomes were the differences in thickness of each layer between sexes.
resultsIn 179 females and males, the appropriate insertion depth was 32.5-45.5 mm and 20.5-42.0 mm in the proximal tibia, 14.5-30.5 mm and 16.5-34.5 mm in the distal tibia, and 27.5-52.5 mm and 26.0-56.5 mm in the proximal humerus. Although females had a thicker soft tissue cover (+6.8 mm [95% CI 3.7-10.1],
conclusionIn adults, there are no sex-specific differences in the appropriate insertion depth for intraosseous access in the proximal or distal tibia or in the proximal humerus.
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.