Trial reportScientific reports2024
Echogenic needles versus non-echogenic needles for in-plane ultrasound-guided infraclavicular axillary vein cannulation, a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Randomized trial of biopsy needle sandblasting in coaxial core-needle liver biopsy: no significant improvement in ultrasound visibility, pain, or tissue yield.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Trial
- Article
- Seeing Artery and VEin Simultaneously in the long axis (SAVES) for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular axillary/subclavian vein cannulation: A retrospective analysis.Journal of intensive medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Echogenic needles improve the reflection of the ultrasound beam. The aim of the study was to compare needle performance during ultrasound-guided cannulation of the infraclavicular axillary vein with an in-plane needle approach, using echogenic needles or non-echogenic standard needles. One hundred adult patients undergoing surgical procedures that required a central venous catheter were randomized for either echogenic or non-echogenic needles. The primary outcome was access time. Secondary outcomes encompassed total procedure time, success in first attempt, number of attempts, number of skin punctures, change of site for vascular access, catheter placement, subjective experience with needle visualization and needle procedure, and adverse events. Median (IQR) [range] venous access time was 21 (15-56) [6-440] in echogenic needle group and 26 (14-91) [6-925] in the non-echogenic needle group (p = 0.40). No statistically significant differences were found in the secondary outcome measures. One patient (non-echogenic needle group) experienced pneumothorax. In three patients in each group (6%) arterial puncture occurred. Echogenic needles did not significantly improve needle control or safety when used for infraclavicular axillary vein cannulation with an in-plane needle approach. The results indicate that standard needles are appropriate for ultrasound guided subclavian vascular access in a perioperative situation.
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.