Observational studyJournal of ultrasound2025
Evaluation of a dressing film for ultrasound-guided vascular puncture to achieve high-quality imaging and infection prevention.
Observational study in Journal of ultrasound, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the quality of ultrasound images obtained during peripheral vascular catheter insertion using a transparent film designed to maintain puncture site sterility during ultrasound-guided puncture.
methodsImages were collected from 10 healthy adult participants with and without film, focusing on the radial artery, forearm cephalic vein, and median cubital vein. In total, 300 ultrasound still images were assessed using a 10-point Likert scale.
resultsImage quality was significantly lower at all sites with the film (mean total image quality: radial artery, 5.2 vs. 6.0: p = 0.019; forearm cephalic vein, 6.1 vs. 7.6: p < 0.001; median cubital vein, 6.0 vs. 7.4: p < 0.001). However, the clinical nurse's evaluation of puncture feasibility showed no significant difference for the radial artery (80.0% vs 96.7%) and forearm cephalic vein (100.0% vs 100.0%).
conclusionCompromised image quality using the film does not negatively affect the puncturability of the radial artery and forearm veins. This finding underscores the potential for maintaining sterile conditions during procedures without compromising the ability to successfully perform puncture, thereby improving patient outcomes and procedural efficiency.
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.