The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Central Vein Catheterization: Failure and Complication Rates by Three Percutaneous Approaches
Abstract
• We prospectively studied the results of 714 attempts at central venous catheterization during an eight-month period in our intensive care department. We compared the rates of failure of catheterization and early complications among three percutaneous approaches: subclavian, anterior jugular, and posterior jugular veins. The procedures were performed by experienced staff or resident physicians and inexperienced interns and residents under teaching supervision. Overall rates of failure and complication were similar for each percutaneous approach within each group of physicians. Overall failure rate was 10.1% for the experienced group and 19.4% for the inexperienced. The complication was 5.4% for experienced and 11% for inexperienced. Among inexperienced physicians, the success rate was 86.7% and the complication rate 7.6% in unconscious patients, whereas in conscious patients these rates were 70.5% and 13.8%, respectively. The inexperienced physicians caused fewer complications in mechanically ventilated than in spontaneously breathing patients. We suggest that inexperienced physicians should first attempt central vein catheterizations in unconscious and mechanically ventilated patients. (Arch Intern Med1986;146:259-261)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Cited by
Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: A meta-analysis of the literature
Randolph, A. G., Cook, D. J., Gonzales, C. A., & Pribble, C. G. (1996) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199612000-00020 · Cited by 852
The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior
Divine, G. W., Brown, J. T., & Frazier, L. M. (1992) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02599201 · Cited by 749
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization
Brass, P., Hellmich, M., Kolodziej, L., Schick, G., & Smith, A. F. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006962.pub2 · Cited by 476
Central venous catheter replacement strategies: A systematic review of the literature
Cook, D., Randolph, A., Kernerman, P., Cupido, C., King, D., Soukup, C., & Brun-Buisson, C. (1997) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199708000-00033 · Cited by 326
Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Gordon, C. E. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.548 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Sznajder, J. I.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1986-02-01
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 259
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4241404470
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Central Vein Catheterization: Failure and Complication Rates by Three Percutaneous Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.1986.00360140065007
- The paper
- Sznajder, J. I. (1986). Central Vein Catheterization: Failure and Complication Rates by Three Percutaneous Approaches. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1986.00360140065007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.