Saphenous vein cutdown vs intraosseous route: Insertion failures
Saphenous vein cutdown showed no clear difference in insertion failures compared with intraosseous route (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Saphenous vein cutdown vs intraosseous route Insertion failures · trainee paramedics using both methods of gaining parenteral access on cadavers Saphenous vein cutdown showed no clear difference in insertion failures compared with intraosseous route (low certainty). Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 4 [0.51, 31.13] | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.