The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complications of central venous catheters: Internal jugular versus subclavian access—A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether complications happen more often with the internal jugular or the subclavian central venous approach. DATA SOURCE: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, bibliographies) up to June 30, 2000, with no language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Reports on prospective comparisons of internal jugular vs. subclavian catheter insertion, with dichotomous data on complications. DATA EXTRACTION: No valid randomized trials were found. Seventeen prospective comparative trials with data on 2,085 jugular and 2,428 subclavian catheters were analyzed. Meta-analyses were performed with relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using fixed and random effects models. DATA SYNTHESIS: In six trials (2,010 catheters), there were significantly more arterial punctures with jugular catheters compared with subclavian (3.0% vs. 0.5%, RR 4.70 [95% CI, 2.05-10.77]). In six trials (1,299 catheters), there were significantly less malpositions with the jugular access (5.3% vs. 9.3%, RR 0.66 [0.44-0.99]). In three trials (707 catheters), the incidence of bloodstream infection was 8.6% with the jugular access and 4.0% with the subclavian access (RR 2.24 [0.62-8.09]). In ten trials (3,420 catheters), the incidence of hemato- or pneumothorax was 1.3% vs. 1.5% (RR 0.76 [0.43--1.33]). In four trials (899), the incidence of vessel occlusion was 0% vs. 1.2% (RR 0.29 [0.07-1.33]). CONCLUSIONS: There are more arterial punctures but less catheter malpositions with the internal jugular compared with the subclavian access. There is no evidence of any difference in the incidence of hemato- or pneumothorax and vessel occlusion. Data on bloodstream infection are scarce. These data are from nonrandomized studies; selection bias cannot be ruled out. In terms of risk, the data most likely represent a best case scenario. For rational decision-making, randomized trials are needed.
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
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
Pittet, D. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510440058033 · Cited by 926
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
Central Vein Catheterization: Failure and Complication Rates by Three Percutaneous Approaches
Sznajder, J. I. (1986) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1986.00360140065007 · Cited by 496
Central Vein Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Intensive Care Patients
Timsit, J.-F., Farkas, J.-C., Boyer, J.-M., Martin, J.-B., Misset, B., Renaud, B., & Carlet, J. (1998) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.114.1.207 · Cited by 478
Using Numerical Results from Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice
McQuay, H. J., & Moore, R. A. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-9-199705010-00007 · Cited by 455
Mermel, L. A., McCormick, R. D., Springman, S. R., & Maki, D. G. (1991) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/0002-9343(91)90369-9 · Cited by 441
Tramèr, M. R., Moore, A. R., Reynolds, J. M. D., & McQuay, H. J. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00267-5 · Cited by 402
Self-citationRichet, H., Hubert, B., Nitemberg, G., Andremont, A., Buu-Hoi, A., Ourbak, P., Galicier, C., Veron, M., Boisivon, A., & Bouvier, A. M. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.28.11.2520-2525.1990 · Cited by 326
Cited by
Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infections
O'Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir257 · Cited by 4,699
Loveday, H. P., Wilson, J. A., Pratt, R. J., Golsorkhi, M., Tingle, A., Bak, A., Browne, J., Prieto, J., & Wilcox, M. (2014) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/s0195-6701(13)60012-2 · Cited by 1,621
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections
O'Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2011) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.003 · Cited by 1,066
Pittiruti, M., Hamilton, H., Biffi, R., MacFie, J., & Pertkiewicz, M. (2009) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.03.015 · Cited by 698
O'Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir138 · Cited by 560
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruesch, S., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 454-460
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003386687
- Cited by
- 629
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 3.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Complications of central venous catheters: Internal jugular versus subclavian access—A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-200202000-00031
- The paper
- Ruesch, S., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R. (2002). Complications of central venous catheters: Internal jugular versus subclavian access—A systematic review. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200202000-00031
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.
