Trial reportLa Tunisie medicale
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective study.
Trial report in La Tunisie medicale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral clinical practice guidelines strongly support the use of ultrasound guidance (USG) for internal jugular vein catheterization. The level of evidence concerning the use of USG for subclavian vein (SCV) cannulation remains low.
aimTo compare the effectiveness and safety of USG and anatomical landmarks approaches for cannulation of SCV.
methodsThis was a prospective randomized study. Patients aged over 18 years old who requiring elective central venous catheterization were included. Non-inclusion criteria were thrombosis of the vein or major coagulopathy. All catheterizations were performed by two anaesthesiology residents. Patients were randomized into two groups: ultrasound guidance group (US group) and anatomical landmarks (LM group). The main outcome was the success rate. The secondary outcomes were the first attempt success rate and the incidence of complications.
resultsSeventy patients were included (35 in each group). The success rate was higher in US group compared to LM group without statistical significance (100% vs 85.7%; p=0.054). The first attempt success rate was significantly higher in the US group (82.9% vs. 40%; p <10
conclusionaccording to our study, US guidance for SCV catheterization seems to be an interesting alternative to anatomical landmarks approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36571740PMC9703904What 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.