| 1 Complication rate total |
4 |
291 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.37 [0.09, 1.46] |
| 1.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture |
1 |
124 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
1.29 [0.65, 2.55] |
| 1.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture |
1 |
40 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.33 [0.13, 0.86] |
| 1.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture |
2 |
127 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.12 [0.01, 1.58] |
| 2 Overall success rate |
5 |
530 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
1.22 [1.00, 1.49] |
| 2.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture |
2 |
333 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
1.16 [0.66, 2.02] |
| 2.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture |
2 |
102 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
1.24 [1.08, 1.44] |
| 2.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture |
1 |
95 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
1.29 [1.11, 1.51] |
| 3 Number of attempts until success |
4 |
406 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐1.24 [‐1.72, ‐0.77] |
| 3.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture |
1 |
209 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐1.42 [‐1.46, ‐1.38] |
| 3.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture |
2 |
102 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐0.76 [‐1.18, ‐0.34] |
| 3.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture |
1 |
95 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
0.00 [‐2.78, ‐1.22] |
| 4 Arterial puncture |
5 |
530 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.20 [0.03, 1.35] |
| 4.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture |
2 |
333 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.27 [0.00, 24.50] |
| 4.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture |
2 |
102 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.22 [0.05, 1.00] |
| 4.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture |
1 |
95 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.04 [0.00, 0.73] |
| 5 Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury) |
3 |
259 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.27 [0.10, 0.76] |
| 5.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture |
1 |
124 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.12 [0.01, 2.22] |
| 5.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture |
1 |
40 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.38 [0.12, 1.21] |
| 5.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture |
1 |
95 |
Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) |
0.09 [0.01, 1.60] |
| 6 Time to successful cannulation |
4 |
291 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐90.70 [‐184.74, 3.35] |
| 6.1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Direct puncture. Time between penetration of skin and successful placement of guide wire within the internal jugular vein |
1 |
124 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
5.40 [‐38.04, 48.84] |
| 6.2 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. Indirect puncture. Time taken to locate the vein |
1 |
40 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐33.38 [‐57.91, ‐8.85] |
| 6.3 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization. No detail on whether direct or indirect puncture. Time between insertion of needle into the skin until free flow of blood from the catheter |
2 |
127 |
Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) |
‐350.84 [‐801.00, 99.33] |
