ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2023
Short-axis versus long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided vascular access: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevention and management of complications associated with arterial catheters.BJA education · 2025Review
- Trial sequential analysis: Quality improvement for meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Complications related to short peripheral intravenous catheters in patients with acute stroke: a prospective, observational, single-cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Observational
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
Background and Aims: There are two approaches for ultrasound (US)-guided vessel cannulation: the short axis (SA) approach and the long axis (LA) approach. However, it remains to be seen which approach is better. Therefore, we performed the present updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of US-guided vascular cannulation between the SA and LA techniques. Methods: We performed a comprehensive electronic database search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for the relevant studies from inception to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials comparing the SA approach and the LA approach for US-guided vascular access were incorporated in this updated meta-analysis. The first-attempt success rate was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the overall success rate, cannulation time, number of attempts and the incidence of complications. The statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4; the Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate each study's potential risk for bias. Results: In total, 16 studies consisting of 1885 participants were incorporated in this updated meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference was found between the SA and LA vascular access techniques for first-pass success rate (risk ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.22). The overall cannulation success rate, complication rate, average cannulation time and average number of attempts were not significantly different between the SA and LA groups. Conclusion: This updated meta-analysis demonstrated that the SA and LA approaches of US-guided vessel cannulation are similar regarding first-pass success, overall cannulation success rate, total complication rate, cannulation time and the number of attempts.
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.