Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178956›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Combined short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approach versus long-axis in-plane approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization in infants and small children: A randomized controlled trial.

Jun Takeshita, Yasufumi Nakajima, Kazuya Tachibana, Hirofumi Hamaba, Tomonori Yamashita, Nobuaki Shime

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jun TakeshitaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Osaka Prefectural Hospital Organization, Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital, Osaka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9162-9864
Yasufumi NakajimaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Kansai Medical University Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Kazuya TachibanaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Osaka Prefectural Hospital Organization, Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Hirofumi HamabaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Osaka Prefectural Hospital Organization, Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Tomonori YamashitaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Osaka Prefectural Hospital Organization, Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Nobuaki ShimeDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-6151
Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital · JPKansai Medical University · JPHiroshima University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ultrasound-guided long-axis in-plane approach for central venous catheterization in infants and small children can prevent posterior wall penetration. The combined short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approach reportedly prevents such penetration in adults. To test the hypothesis of non-inferiority of the combined approach to the long-axis in-plane approach, we compared the two approaches in infants and small children. Patients were randomized based on whether they underwent ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization using the combined or long-axis in-plane approach. Posterior wall penetration rates, first-attempt success rates, overall success rates within 20 min; scanning, puncture, and procedure durations; and number of attempts were compared between the groups. In the combined and long-axis in-plane groups (n = 55 per group), the posterior wall penetration rates were 5.5% (3/55) and 3.6% (2/55) (P = 0.65), the first-attempt success rates were 94.5% (52/55) and 92.7% (51/55) (P = 0.70), and the overall success rates within 20 min were 100% (55/55) and 98.2% (54/55) (P = 0.32), respectively. In the combined and long-axis in-plane groups, the median (interquartile range) scanning durations were 21 (16.5-34.8) s and 47 (29.3-65) s (P<0.0001), the puncture durations were 114 (83-170) s and 74 (52.3-117.3) s (P = 0.0002), and the procedure durations were 141 (99-97.8) s and 118 (88.5-195.5) s (P = 0.14), respectively. The median number of attempts was 1 (interquartile range: 1-1, range: 1-3) in both groups (P = 0.72). Similar to the long-axis in-plane approach, the combined approach for internal jugular vein catheterization prevented posterior wall penetration in infants and small children. Trial registration: This trial was registered before patient enrollment in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, registration number UMIN000039387 (https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/ctr/ctr_view_reg.cgi?recptno=R000044907).

Indexed as

Catheterization, Central VenousAdultChildHumansInfantJugular VeinsPuncturesUltrasonographyUltrasonography, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID36178956
PMCPMC9524688
OpenAlexW4298086651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.