ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2022
Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Economic Evaluations in Intensive Care: An Updated Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2025Pooled it
- Right supraclavicular fossa ultrasound view for real-time central venous catheter tip positioning in adult patients: A systematic review.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- From CXR to ultrasound: a multi-framework approach to advancing De-implementation in acute care.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Rapid perfusion ultrasonography in the assessment of axillary venous catheter tip position: a prospective observational study.International journal of emergency medicine · 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
- True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Are routine chest radiographs still indicated after central line insertion? A scoping review.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024Article
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices.
methodsWe developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model.
resultsThe estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation.
conclusionIn this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.
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.