Summary of findings 6. [Radial] B‐mode ultrasound compared to modified B‐mode ultrasound for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.
| [Radial] B‐mode ultrasound compared to modified B‐mode ultrasound for radial artery catheterisation in adults | |||||
| Patient or population: adults requiring radial artery catheterisation Setting: hospital Intervention: B‐mode ultrasound Comparison: modified B‐mode ultrasound | |||||
| Outcomes | №. of participants (studies) Follow‐up | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | |
| Risk with modified B‐mode ultrasound | Risk difference with [radial] B‐mode ultrasound | ||||
| First‐attempt success rate Follow‐up: end of the procedure (< 1 hour) to 1 day |
153 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa,b,c | RR 0.68 (0.55 to 0.84) | study population | |
| 831 per 1000 | 266 fewer per 1000 (374 fewer to 133 fewer) | ||||
| Pseudoaneurysm | not reported | ||||
| Overall success rate Follow‐up: end of the procedure (< 1 hour) to 1 day |
153 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa,b,c | RR 0.93 (0.86 to 1.01) | study population | |
| 974 per 1000 | 68 fewer per 1000 (136 fewer to 10 more) | ||||
| Time needed for a successful procedure Follow‐up: end of the procedure (< 1 hour) to 1 day |
153 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa,b,c | ‐ | mean time needed for a successful procedure was 0.384 minutes | MD 0.04 higher (0.01 lower to 0.09 higher) |
| Major haematoma Follow‐up: end of the procedure (< 1 hour) to 1 day |
153 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWa,d | RR 3.23 (1.37 to 7.60) | study population | |
| 78 per 1000 | 174 more per 1000 (29 more to 514 more) | ||||
| Adverse events (pain) | not reported | ||||
| Quality of life | not reported | ||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
aDowngraded one level due to risk of high risk of performance bias.
bDowngraded half a level due to inconsistency: unexplained substantial heterogeneity.
cDowngraded half a level due to imprecision: few participants.
dDowngraded two levels due to imprecision: few participants and 95% CI consistent with possible benefit and possible harm.