SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Infrared Devices Versus Traditional Palpation Approach for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of infrared (IR) devices versus the traditional palpation technique for first-attempt success of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adults.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and CINAHL was conducted on 28 May 2024 and included articles in English or French published from 1st January 2000 onwards. REVIEW
methodsEligible studies included RCTs comparing IR devices with the traditional palpation method for PIVC insertion in adults. The primary outcome was first-attempt success. Secondary outcomes included overall success, number of attempts, cannulation time and patient pain. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool, and a random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis.
resultsFive RCTs were included, involving 690 patients and 704 catheters, including 289 PIVCs in patients with Difficult Intravascular Access (DIVA) criteria. First attempt insertion success was similar when using infrared devices (139/331, 42%) and traditional palpation (143/373, 38%) with Risk Ratio (RR) 1.08 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.70). No significant statistical differences were noted in secondary outcomes: overall insertion success, number of attempts, time to cannulate and patient pain. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were substantial (primary analysis I
conclusionCurrent evidence does not support the systematic use of infrared devices to improve PIVC insertion success, reduce the number of attempts or alleviate patient pain compared with traditional palpation in adults. Further high-quality studies with suitable sample sizes and varied populations are needed to better establish the potential place of infrared devices. IMPACT: This study highlights the limited benefit of IR devices in routine clinical practice and underscores the need for further research into their use in specialised settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Involvement. This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
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.