Glasin 2020.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised, open‐label trial | |
| Participants | Setting: ED Number of participants: 90 (USG 45, LM 45) Age, mean (SD) years: USG 61.7 (16), LM 60.8 (18.6) Difficulty: not restricted, but obese (BMI ≥ 25) Sites of peripheral veins: not specified | |
| Interventions |
Technique
LM vs USG:
Machine: x‐Porte (Fujifilm Sonosite) with a high‐frequency linear transducer
Axis: short
Guidance: dynamic Operator Profession: nurse Number of operators: 17 (16 nurses performed LM, 1 nurse performed USG) Experience of USG before the study: yes Length of experience with USG before the study: 1 year A training programme of USG for the study: yes Number of clinical cases with USG required or experienced before the study intervention started: 50 Needle Length: not specified Gauge: 12 ‐ 18 |
|
| Outcomes | First‐pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, pain, procedure time for first‐pass cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction, overall complications Definition of successful cannulation: smooth normal saline flush Definition of start and end of time measurement Start: applying stasis with either a tourniquet or a blood pressure cuff End: blood entered a catheter flashback chamber |
|
| Funding | DW obtained research funding, but the source was not specified | |
| Declarations of interest | None declared | |
| Notes | The study had not yet been published as of December 2020. We received an unpublished manuscript courtesy of the author | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The randomisation list was computer‐generated |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Used sequentially numbered, sealed and opaque envelopes (this was not stated in the article, but obtained through communication with an author (DW)) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) First‐pass success of cannulation | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Overall‐success of cannulation | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Pain | High risk | Although a third person assessed the outcome, participants were not blinded and the outcome could be influenced by subjectivity |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Procedure time for overall cannulation | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Number of attempts | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Patient satisfaction | High risk | Although a third person assessed the outcome, participants were not blinded and the outcome could be influenced by subjectivity |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Overall complications | Low risk | Although blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention, a third person assessed the outcome |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) First‐pass success of cannulation | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Overall success of cannulation | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Pain | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Procedure time for overall cannulation | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Number of attempts | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Patient satisfaction | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Overall complications | Low risk | There was only one dropout (USG 1), and the reason was detailed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The outcomes reported in the article were consistent with the trial registry (NCT04412967) |
| Other bias | Low risk | No concerns about other sources of bias |
| Overall risk First‐pass success of cannulation | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |
| Overall risk Overall success of cannulation | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |
| Overall risk Pain | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Procedure time for first‐pass cannulation | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |
| Overall risk Procedure time for overall cannulation | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |
| Overall risk Number of attempts | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |
| Overall risk Patient satisfaction | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Overall complications | Low risk | All domains were at low risk |