ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Effectiveness of intraosseous access during resuscitation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Pooled it
- Characterization and management of pain across phases of intraosseous infusion in emergency department patients with non-cardiac arrest.Saudi medical journal · 2025Trial
- Intraosseous access in neurological emergencies: a critical narrative review and research framework.Future science OA · 2026Review
- First attempt success rate of intraosseous access in preterm infants and neonates: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- IntraVenous vs IntraOsseous access in Cardiac Arrest: the omitted economic question (IVOCA study).Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Vascular access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms-a retrospective observational study of the intravenous versus intraosseous approach: the VANISH study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Intraosseous versus intravenous fluid resuscitation in gastrointestinal tumor-related acute hemorrhage: impact on 30-day mortality and lactate clearance.American journal of cancer research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuring resuscitation in emergency situations, establishing intravascular access is crucial for promptly initiating delivery of fluids, blood, blood products, and medications. In cases of emergency, when intravenous (IV) access proves unsuccessful, intraosseous (IO) access serves as a viable alternative. However, there is a notable lack of information concerning the frequency and efficacy of IO access in acute care settings. This study aims to assess the efficacy of intraosseous (IO) access in acute care settings, especially focusing on children in a level 1 trauma center.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with IO access presented in a level 1 trauma center emergency department (ED) between January 2015 and April 2020. Data regarding medication and fluid infusion was documented, and the clinical success rate was calculated.
resultsOf the 109,548 patients that were admitted to the ED, 25,686 IV lines were inserted. Documentation of 188 patients of which 73 (38.8%) children was complete and used for analysis. In these 188 patients, a total of 232 IO accesses were placed. Overall, 182 patients had a functional IO access (204 needles) (88%). In children (age < 18 years) success rate was lower as compared to adults, 71-84% as compared to 94%. However, univariate regression showed no association between the percentage of functional IO access and gender, age, weight, health care location (prehospital and in hospital), anatomical position (tibia as compared to humerus) or type of injury.
conclusionIntraosseous access demonstrates a high success rate for infusion, independent of gender, age, weight, anatomical positioning, or healthcare setting, with minimal complication rates. Caution is especially warranted for children under the age of six months, since success rate was lower.
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.