ReviewCureus2026
Accuracy and Effectiveness of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Peripheral Intravenous Access in Emergency and Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral intravenous (PIV) access is essential in emergency and trauma care, but challenging in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA). This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and effectiveness of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided PIV access compared to conventional landmark techniques in emergency and trauma patients. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted for studies published between January 2021 and December 2025 to focus on contemporary operator training and device improvements, while acknowledging potential time-lag bias. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies reporting first-attempt success, overall success, time to cannulation, attempts, or complications were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data, with conflicts resolved by consensus; inter-rater agreement was calculated where possible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Nine studies (1,576 participants) met the inclusion criteria: four RCTs, one quasi-experimental, two retrospective cohorts, one prospective observational, and one pilot study. POCUS-guided PIV access significantly improved first-attempt success and overall success (82.4-100% vs. 13.89%, noting the comparator arm may reflect highly selected DIVA patients or less experienced operators) compared to conventional techniques. Fewer attempts were required with POCUS. Time to cannulation was measured from skin contact to successful insertion, including multiple attempts, and was operator- and setup-dependent. Complication rates were comparable or lower with POCUS (definitions included infiltration, extravasation, arterial puncture, and infection; follow-up duration was specified in each study). POCUS approach considered standardized measurement (short-axis vs. long-axis) and vein depth; vessels ≥3.5 mm predicted higher success (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.39-5.96). Training programmes involved nurses, residents, and attendings; competency was objectively assessed, with some studies using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, and proficiency was achieved after a median of 11 insertions, with post-credentialing success >90% and reduced midline catheter utilization. Outcomes were prospectively measured, minimizing institutional practice drift. Risk of bias was low in five studies, moderate in two, and low/some concerns in two RCTs. POCUS-guided PIV access significantly improves success rates and reduces attempts in emergency and trauma patients with difficult access, with a favourable safety profile. Training diverse operators achieves high proficiency and reduces invasive device use. Findings support routine POCUS use for DIVA patients in acute care 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.