ReviewThe ultrasound journal2025
Real-time ultrasound for umbilical venous catheter insertion in neonates- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The ultrasound journal, 2025. 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.
- Reducing umbilical catheter migration rate by introducing regular POCUS assessment: a quality improvement project.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Chinese guideline for the prevention and control of complications associated to umbilical venous catheterization in neonates (2025).Pediatric investigation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere has been an increase in real-time ultrasonography use in central venous catheterisation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the role of real-time ultrasound use in umbilical venous catheterisation in neonates. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched on July 11, 2024. We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (for study conduct), GRADE methodology (for certainty of evidence), and PRISMA guidelines (for reporting). STUDY SELECTION: All randomised controlled trials/RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions/NRSIs comparing real-time ultrasound with the conventional technique of umbilical venous catheterisation were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The outcomes of interest were malposition rates, procedure duration, mortality, sepsis, and cost. Data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six studies (three RCTs and three NRSI), including 863 participants, were included. Data were analysed separately for RCTs and NRSIs. The RCTs were at low risk of bias, but NRSIs were at moderate to serious risk. The pooled estimates from RCTs showed a decrease in malposition rates (2 studies, 165 participants, risk ratio/RR 0.45, 95% confidence interval/CI 0.23, 0.90) and procedure duration (3 studies, 196 participants, mean difference -6.1 min, 95% CI -8.4, -3.8 min) with real-time ultrasound use. There was no reduction in sepsis. Mortality was not reported. The certainty of evidence was low for malposition rates and procedure duration. The data from NRSIs showed a reduction in malposition rates (3 studies, 667 participants, risk ratio/RR 0.10, 95% confidence interval/CI 0.07, 0.14) without an impact on procedure duration and sepsis. However, these findings did not improve the evidence.
conclusionsLow certainty evidence suggests that using real-time ultrasound for umbilical venous catheterisation reduces malposition rates. There is a clinically insignificant reduction in procedure duration. There is no sufficient data to come to a conclusion on the critical outcomes of sepsis and mortality. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024567895.
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.