Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928035›Full record

ArticleJournal of pediatric intensive care2022

Practice Patterns of Central Venous Catheter Placement and Confirmation in Pediatric Critical Care.

Ahmed Veten, Joshua Davis, Robert Kavanagh, Neal Thomas, Adrian Zurca

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pediatric intensive care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Temporary Femoral Central Venous Catheters in the PICU: Two-Center, Retrospective Cohort Study of Catheter Tip Position and Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism, 2016-2021.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed VetenDepartment of Pediatric Critical Care, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1755-6967
Joshua DavisDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6096-2856
Robert KavanaghDepartment of Pediatrics & Critical Care Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8214-0274
Neal ThomasDepartment of Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7991-7510
Adrian ZurcaDepartment of Pediatric Critical Care, Pediatrics, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6308-8236
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal practices for the placement of central venous catheters (CVCs) in critically ill children are unclear. This study describes the clinical practice of pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) providers regarding CVC placement, including site selection, confirmation practices and assessment of complications. Two-hundred fourteen PCCM providers responded to an electronic survey, including 170 (79%) attending physicians, 30 (14%) fellow physicians, and 14 (7%) advanced practice providers. PCCM providers most commonly place internal jugular (IJ) and femoral CVCs, with subclavian CVCs and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed less commonly (IJ 99%, femoral 95%, subclavian 40%, PICC 19%). The IJ is the most preferred site (128/214 (60%)); decreased infection risk is the most common reason for preferring this site. The subclavian is the least preferred site (150/214 [70%]) due to concern for increased risk of complications (51%) and personal discomfort with the procedure (49%). One-hundred twenty-six (59%) of respondents reported receiving formal ultrasound (US) or echocardiography training. Respondents reported using dynamic US guidance for placement in 90% of IJ, 86% of PICC, 78% of femoral, and 12% of subclavian CVCs. Plain radiography (X-ray) was the most preferred modality for confirming CVC tip position (85%) compared with US (9%) and no imaging (5%). Most providers reported using X-ray to evaluate for pneumothorax following upper extremity CVC placement, with only 5% reporting use of US and none relying on physical exam alone. This study demonstrates wide variability in PCCM providers' CVC placement practices. Potential training gaps exist for placement of subclavian catheters and use of US.

Indexed as

central venous cathetereducationpediatric critical carepneumothoraxultrasoundvascular access

Identifiers

PMID35928035
PMCPMC9345669
OpenAlexW3130030675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.