ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
Post-insertion outcomes of ultrasound-guided versus landmark peripheral intravenous catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound-guided (USG) peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion improves cannulation success, particularly in patients with difficult intravenous access. Whether USG also improves post-insertion outcomes, including catheter failure, dwell time, and complications, remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies comparing USG with landmark-guided PIVC insertion and reporting at least one post-insertion outcome. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from January 2000 to March 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis used the DerSimonian-Laird estimator; REML with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was performed as a post-hoc sensitivity analysis because few studies contributed to pooled outcomes.
resultsFourteen studies (5 randomized trials, 9 cohort studies; 78,209 participants) were included. Catheter failure did not differ significantly between USG and landmark groups (k = 4; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.99-1.51; p = 0.056), although the estimate was sensitive to model choice and exclusion of the largest study. Dwell time and extravasation were not pooled because of substantial heterogeneity (I² = 91.9% and 95.7%, respectively). Infiltration also showed no significant difference (k = 2; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12-3.83). Several studies reporting favorable USG outcomes were substantially confounded by systematic differences in catheter length or material between groups.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not demonstrate a consistent post-insertion advantage of USG over landmark PIVC placement. Reported benefits in some studies may reflect catheter-specification differences rather than ultrasound guidance itself. Larger, well-controlled trials are needed.
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.