Observational studyBMJ open2025
Enhancing the quality and safety of central venous catheter insertion using projection mapping: a prospective observational simulation study with eye-tracking glasses.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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.
- Design of a Novel Insertion Training System for Central Venous Catheterization.Journal of medical devices · 2026Article
- Opportunities for Improved Device Design Based on Central Line Placement Practices: Contextual Inquiry Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Developing an AI-driven multimodal approach to visualising resilient team performance: joint attentional engagement with gaze and speech in simulated emergency scenarios.BMJ open quality · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the effect of projection mapping (PM) on the quality and safety of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion under real-time ultrasound guidance.
designProspective, observational, simulation study.
settingThis study was conducted at the Yokohama City University Medical Center (Yokohama, Japan). Volunteer residents were enrolled over 12 months from January to December 2023. PARTICIPANTS AND
methods12 rotating residents (postgraduation year (PGY) 1 and 2) and eight anaesthesia residents (PGY 3-5) placed the CVC in the internal jugular vein in a simulator under the real-time ultrasound guidance using the short-axis out-of-plane approach. The ultrasound image was provided either just caudad to the puncture site using the PM method or on the monitor of the ultrasound machine (conventional method) placed next to the simulator's right shoulder. Each resident performed four punctures alternating between the PM and conventional methods, and the first method for each resident was chosen randomly. Eye-tracking analysis was also used to evaluate differences in gaze behaviour. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the procedure time defined as the time from the application of the ultrasound probe on the puncture field until successful puncture of the vein. The secondary outcomes were incidence of complications and eye-tracking analysis data.
resultsThe time to complete the line placement was significantly shorter for the PM than for the conventional method (median (IQR) 22.5 (15.5-30.6) s vs 30.0 (20.4-95.4) s; p=0.02, Wilcoxon's signed-rank test). The incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture was significantly lower in the PM method (0% vs 25%; p=0.02, McNemar's test). Eye-tracking analysis revealed that the percentage of time spent gazing at the ultrasound image was higher in the PM than in the conventional method (61.6% (55.0-69.2) vs 45.7% (34.1-54.5); p<0.01).
conclusionsThe PM method facilitates ultrasound-guided CVC placement while preventing excessive needle advancement in the inexperienced operators. This was accompanied by enhanced fixation of the participants' line-of-sight on the ultrasound image.
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.