Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,090

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis

Open access
Hind, Daniel, Calvert, Neill, McWilliams, Richard, Davidson, Andrew, Paisley, Suzy, Beverley, Catherine, Thomas, Steven·2003·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives To assess the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound guided central venous cannulation. Data sources 15 electronic bibliographic databases, covering biomedical, science, social science, health economics, and grey literature. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Populations Patients scheduled for central venous access. Intervention reviewed Guidance using real time two dimensional ultrasonography or Doppler needles and probes compared with the anatomical landmark method of cannulation. Data extraction Risk of failed catheter placement (primary outcome), risk of complications from placement, risk of failure on first attempt at placement, number of attempts to successful catheterisation, and time (seconds) to successful catheterisation. Data synthesis 18 trials (1646 participants) were identified. Compared with the landmark method, real time two dimensional ultrasound guidance for cannulating the internal jugular vein in adults was associated with a significantly lower failure rate both overall (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.33) and on the first attempt (0.59, 0.39 to 0.88). Limited evidence favoured two dimensional ultrasound guidance for subclavian vein and femoral vein procedures in adults (0.14, 0.04 to 0.57 and 0.29, 0.07 to 1.21, respectively). Three studies in infants confirmed a higher success rate with two dimensional ultrasonography for internal jugular procedures (0.15, 0.03 to 0.64). Doppler guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein in adults was more successful than the landmark method (0.39, 0.17 to 0.92), but the landmark method was more successful for subclavian vein procedures (1.48, 1.03 to 2.14). No significant difference was found between these techniques for cannulation of the internal jugular vein in infants. An indirect comparison of relative risks suggested that two dimensional ultrasonography would be more successful than Doppler guidance for subclavian vein procedures in adults (0.09, 0.02 to 0.38). Conclusions Evidence supports the use of two dimensional ultrasonography for central venous cannulation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,090

Metadata

Authors
Hind, D., Calvert, N., McWilliams, R., Davidson, A., Paisley, S., Beverley, C., & Thomas, S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-08-14
Volume
327
Issue
7411
Pages
361
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2068072205
Cited by
1,090
References
1
FWCI
44.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361
The paper
Hind, D., Calvert, N., McWilliams, R., Davidson, A., Paisley, S., Beverley, C., & Thomas, S. (2003). Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361

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.