ArticleBMC nursing2022
Ultrasound-guided versus traditional method for peripheral venous access: an umbrella review.
Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Portable Ultrasound System for Peripheral Intravenous Access: Performance and Safety in a Clinical Setting.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Health System Impact of Emergency Department-Based Vascular Access Program in Patients with Difficult Intravenous Access.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Review
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Multimodal Tool for the Management of Sepsis in the Emergency Department.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Smart Glasses to Facilitate Ultrasound Guided Peripheral Intravenous Access in the Simulation Setting for Thai Emergency Medical Service Providers.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Heat Application to Improve Venous Dilation for Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization in Older Adults: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of infusion nursing : the official publication of the Infusion Nurses SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShort peripheral catheters (SPC) insertion technique has a high failure rate, one of the reasons why the ultrasound (US)-guided method has been proposed as a valid alternative to traditional technique in SPC insertion. This umbrella review aims to synthesize the available evidence comparing the US-guided method with the traditional method on SPC insertion in terms of effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction.
methodsAn umbrella review addressing the comparison between US-guided versus traditional method for SPC insertion in which only systematic reviews of all comparative study designs were eligible was carried out. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2 tool. The quality of evidence per association was assessed using the GRADE criteria and was stablished as high, moderate, low and very low.
resultsTwelve systematic reviews with a range of 75-1860 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence supports the positive effect of US-guided method on first-attempt success rate and number of attempts. There is moderate certainty evidence that US-guided method does not reduce the time spent in SPC insertion. Low certainty evidence supports that US-guided method improves both overall success rates and patient satisfaction. Emergency department was the main hospital department where these findings were reported.
conclusionsThe best current evidence indicates that US-guided method for SPC insertion is postulated as a valid alternative for both adult and pediatric population, especially in patients with difficult venous access and in hospital departments where optimal vascular access in the shortest time possible is critical.
trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42021290824.
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.