ArticlePediatric investigation2024
Comparative analysis of formulae for umbilical venous catheterization depth based on birth weight.
Article in Pediatric investigation, 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.
- Chinese guideline for the prevention and control of complications associated to umbilical venous catheterization in neonates (2025).Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative analysis of formulae for umbilical venous catheterization depth based on birth weight.Pediatric investigation · 2024Article
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
Importance: Umbilical venous catheterization (UVC) is a common procedure for critically ill newborn infants. The insertion depth was estimated before the procedure using various formulae. Objective: To compare the accuracy of five published formulae based on birth weight (BW). Methods: This is a secondary retrospective analysis using data collected in a previous study, in which the actual final insertion depth of UVC was recorded. Predicted insertion depths were calculated by five published formulae based on BW. Then the actual depth and predicted depth were compared. Accurate position was defined as predicted depth being within ± 10% of actual depth. The accuracy rate calculated as "(accurately positioned UVCs/ all UVCs) × 100%" and the ratio of difference calculated as "(|predicted depth - actual depth|/ actual depth)" were compared among five formulae. Results: Totally 1298 were enrolled, with gestational age 29.8 ± 2.3 weeks and BW 1215 ± 273 g. The accuracy rates were: Tambasco formula (67.2%), Shukla formula (65.0%), JSS formula (64.4%), BW formula (48.9%), and revised Shukla formula (26.9%). Tambasco formula had the highest accuracy rate in newborns with BW ≥ 1000 g. JSS formula had the highest accuracy rate in newborns with BW<1000 g. Interpretation: It is suggested to use the Tambasco formula for estimating the UVC insertion depth for newborns, especially for those with BW ≥ 1000 g, and to apply the JSS formula for newborns with BW < 1000 g. There is no universal formula for achieving 100% accurate positioning.
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.