SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Insertion site of central venous catheter among hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central venous cannulation in critically ill patients: guidelines of the Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Guideline
- The risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection between internal jugular and subclavian sites in critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
- Temporal and anatomic determinants of central-line-associated bloodstream infection risk in a tertiary PICU: a 3-year time-to-event and competing-risk analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Review
- Risk Factors for Difficulty and Complications Associated with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2025Article
- Risk Assessment and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients in Tibet: A Prospective Cohort Study with Historical Controls.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- NLP-Driven Analysis of Pneumothorax Incidence Following Central Venous Catheter Procedures: A Data-Driven Re-Evaluation of Routine Imaging in Value-Based Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cubital vein access provides a practical alternative to internal jugular vein access for coronary sinus catheter placement.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach for subclavian vein catheterisation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- How to improve the efficiency and the safety of real-time ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization in 2023: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Central venous catheterization is a commonly performed procedure, accounting for approximately 8% of hospitalized patients. Based on the current literatures, the most acceptable site for central venous catheterization is inconclusive, considering various complications in hospitalized patients. Herein, we conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the clinically important complications among internal jugular, subclavian, femoral, and peripheral insertion. Materials and methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Ichushi databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 18 years and randomized control trials that compared two different insertion sites (internal jugular, subclavian, femoral, and peripheral vein) were selected. The primary outcomes were clinically important infectious, thrombotic, and mechanical complications. Results: Among the 5,819 records initially identified, 13 trials (6,201 patients) were included for a network meta-analysis. For clinically important infectious complication, subclavian insertion decreased the complication risk, compared with internal jugular [risk ratio (RR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.81; moderate certainty], and femoral insertion increased than subclavian insertion (RR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.02-6.44; moderate certainty). Peripheral insertion was also significantly associated with a lower risk compared with internal jugular (RR 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.32; low certainty); subclavian (RR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05-0.77; moderate certainty); and femoral insertion (RR 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.40; low certainty). For clinically important thrombotic complication, we did not find significant differences between insertion sites. For clinically important mechanical complication, femoral insertion decreased the complication risk, compared with internal jugular (RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.82; moderate certainty) and subclavian insertion (RR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66; moderate certainty). Peripheral insertion was also associated with the lower complication risk compared with internal jugular (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85; low certainty) and subclavian insertion (RR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.75; moderate certainty). Conclusion: The insertion site of the central venous catheter, which is most likely to cause the fewest complications, should be selected. Our findings can provide the rationale for deciding the insertion site for a central venous catheter. Systematic review registration: [www.protocols.io], identifier [61375].
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.