ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of In Vitro Measurement and Ultrasound for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement in Premature Infants: A Before-and-After Self-Controlled Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insertion technologies for neonatal venous access: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
- An Equation to Estimate PICC Catheter Length in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ultrasonography (US) and in vitro measurement (IVM) methods in localizing peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in premature infants and analyze the relevant factors affecting the accuracy of IVM. Methodology The study employs a prospective before-and-after self-controlled clinical trial design. A total of 210 premature infants who underwent PICC catheterization were compared. We assessed the rate of catheter tip placement, consistency, and stability and analyzed the relevant factors. Results The study enrolled a total of 202 premature infants after eight infants dropped out. The one-time positioning rates of the PICC catheter tip using US and IVM were 100% and 73.8%, respectively. Concerning IVM, 53 (26.2%) patients did not reach the optimal position, with 24 (11.8%) patients having a shallow position and 29 (14.3%) having a deep position. The consistency of the two methods was 0.782 (p < 0.05). The degree of dispersion of US was 0.2 (0.0-0.4) cm, which was significantly smaller than IVM at 1.5 (0.0-1.8) cm. Gestational age less than 32 weeks (odds ratio (OR) = 6.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.43-30.81), weight less than 1,500 g (OR = 5.85, 95% CI = 2.11-16.20), body length less than 40 cm (OR = 15.36, 95% CI = 4.47-52.72), mechanical ventilation (OR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.77-14.83), abdominal distension (OR = 78.18, 95% CI = 10.62-575.22), and bloating (OR = 8.81, 95% CI = 1.42-47.00) were risk factors that affected the accuracy of IVM. Conclusions Gestational age, weight, length, mechanical ventilation, abdominal distension, and swelling can lead to deviations with IVM. US can directly view the tip of the catheter, which is more accurate. Additionally, it is recommended to reduce the length of the catheter by 1.3 cm when using IVM to achieve the best-estimated placement length.
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.