Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Outcome-based simulation training for ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: clinical impact on preventing mechanical complications.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Site-specific complications of central venous catheterization under systematic ultrasound guidance: a target trial emulation revisiting the 3SITES study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- The effect of reversed screen orientation versus standard orientation in bedside ultrasound on vascular access skill acquisition: a cadaver study.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Impact of the simulation-based Airway and Catheter Cannulation Education-from Starters to Specialists (ACCESS) program for critical care procedures.Journal of trauma and injury · 2026Article
- Simulation-based training in ultrasound-guided pediatric central venous catheterization for anesthesiology residents: transfer to the clinical setting.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Assessing anatomical knowledge and confidence in central venous catheter insertion: a single-center cross-sectional study among physicians in a resource-limited setting.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheter placement has been associated with mechanical complications, some of which can be life-threatening. Recent studies have shown that simulation-based education on ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement improves puncture success rates; however, its effect on reducing mechanical complications remains unclear. This observational study examined how outcome-based simulation training for ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement affects the incidence of mechanical complications in a clinical setting.
methodsThe Safe Central Venous Catheter Placement and Management Committee established a reporting system to monitor central venous catheter placement. In 2016, a skill assessment of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement was conducted. Outcome-based simulation training was introduced in 2017. Skills were evaluated using the skill assessment tool developed by the Japanese Society for Medical Simulation.
resultsAfter implementing skill assessment and outcome-based simulation training, the mechanical complication rate decreased from 2.2% in 2015 to 1.2% in 2023.
conclusionsA recent meta-analysis reported a 2.3% mechanical complication rate during ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement. In comparison, the 1.2% complication rate at our institution is notably lower. This study suggests that outcome-based simulation training for ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement may help reduce the incidence of mechanical complications in clinical settings.
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.