Cochrane · systematic review · CD013434
Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults
Tada, M, Yamada, N, Matsumoto, T, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 28.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 19%Low 4 · 19%Moderate 4 · 19%High 3 · 14.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults classed as difficult
Population: adults undergoing peripheral venous cannulation classed as difficulta
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
First‐pass success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 1.5 [1.15, 1.95] | 10 studies · 815 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Overall success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 1.4 [1.1, 1.77] | 10 studies · 670 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Pain NRS: from 0 to 10, where 10 is maximum pain Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 323 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation (seconds) Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 219 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of cannulation attempts Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 568 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Patient satisfaction NRS from 0 to 10 or 4‐step Likert scale The higher the score, the higher the level of satisfaction Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 333 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Overall complications Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 0.64 [0.37, 1.1] | 5 studies · 431 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults classed as moderately difficult
Population: adults undergoing peripheral venous cannulation classed as moderately difficulta
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
First‐pass success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 1.14 [1.02, 1.27] | 1 study · 401 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Overall success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain NRS: from 0 to 10, where 10 is maximum pain Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 401 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation (seconds) Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 401 participants | High |
Number of cannulation attempts Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction NRS from 0 to 10 or 4‐step Likert scaleThe higher the score the higher the level of satisfaction Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall complications Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 0.83 [0.38, 1.82] | 1 study · 401 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults classed as easy
Population: adults undergoing peripheral venous cannulation classed as easya
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
First‐pass success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 0.89 [0.85, 0.94] | 1 study · 596 participants | High |
Overall success of cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain NRS: from 0 to 10, where 10 is maximum pain Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 596 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation (seconds) Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 596 participants | High |
Number of cannulation attempts Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction NRS from 0 to 10 or 4‐step Likert scale The higher the score, the higher the level of satisfaction Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall complications Ultrasound guidance vs landmark method | RR 2.48 [0.9, 6.87] | 1 study · 596 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |