ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2024
Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Newly Developed Needle in Emergency Room: A Single-Center Observational Study.
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2024. 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
Aim of the study: Peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC) insertion is frequently performed in the emergency room (ER) and many failures of initial PIVC insertion occur. To reduce the failures, new needles were developed. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of the newly developed needle reduced the failure of initial PIVC insertion in the ER compared with the use of the existing needle. Material and methods: This single-centre, prospective observational study was conducted in Japan between April 1, 2022, and February 2, 2023. We included consecutive patients who visited our hospital by ambulance as a secondary emergency on a weekday during the day shift (from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). The practitioners for PIVC insertion and assessors were independent. The primary and secondary outcomes were the failure of initial PIVC insertion and number of procedures, respectively. We defined the difficulty of titrating, leakage, and hematoma within 30 s after insertion as failures. To evaluate the association between the outcomes and the use of newly developed needles, we performed multivariate logistic regression and multiple regression analyses by adjusting for covariates. Results: In total, 522 patients without missing data were analysed, and 81 (15.5%) patients showed failure of initial PIVC insertion. The median number of procedures (interquartile range) was 1 (1-1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the failure of initial PIVC insertion (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, [0.48-1.31]; p = 0.36). Moreover, multiple regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the number of procedures (regression coefficient, -0.0042; 95% confidence interval, [-0.065-0.056]; p = 0.89). Conclusions: Our study did not show a difference between the two types of needles with respect to the failure of initial PIVC insertion and the number of procedures.
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.