SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Different axis approaches for ultrasound-guided centrally inserted central catheterization in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. 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.
- The effect of reversed screen orientation versus standard orientation in bedside ultrasound on vascular access skill acquisition: a cadaver study.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Trial
- [Placement of central venous catheters in pediatric anesthesia : Indications, techniques and complications].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Review
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
Background: Centrally inserted central catheterization (CICC) is a critical procedure in pediatric care. However, CICC in children poses greater challenges compared to adults due to anatomical and physiological differences, leading to higher complication rates. Ultrasound-guided approaches have been developed to enhance the safety and effectiveness of CICC, but the comparative efficacy of different axis approaches remains unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing different axis approaches for ultrasound-guided CICC in children was conducted. Searches were carried out in databases up to June 10, 2024. Six studies were included in the systematic review and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included first-attempt success rate, overall success rate, and cannulation time. Secondary outcomes were complications such as hematoma and posterior wall puncture. Results: Data from 547 children were analyzed. The long-axis in-plane approach significantly reduced cannulation time (MD -27.48 s, 95% CI, -33.99 to -20.97) and overall complications OR 0.21, 95% CI, 0.1-0.48) compared to short-axis out-of-plane approach. No significant differences were found in first-attempt or overall success rates between the long-axis and short-axis approaches. Conclusion: The long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided CICC in children offers significant advantages in reducing cannulation time and complications. While dynamic needle tip positioning method may serve as an alternative to in-plane methods, further studies are needed to validate its clinical efficacy. Further research is needed to refine these techniques and explore their application in diverse 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.