İsmailoğlu 2015.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Quasi‐randomised, open‐label trial Participants were allocated to each group alternately, in the order in which they were seen |
|
| Participants | Setting: ED Number of participants: 60 (USG 30, LM 30) Age, mean (SD) years: not specified Difficulty: difficult (a history or suspicion of difficult cannulation, and could not see or palplate a target vein) Sites of peripheral veins: upper extremity | |
| Interventions |
Technique
LM vs USG:
Machine: Sonosite Micromaxx (Sonosite) with a high‐frequency linear transducer
Axis: not specified
Guidance: dynamic Operator Profession: ED nurses Number of operators: not specified Experience of USG before the study: no Length of experience with USG before the study: not specified A training programme of USG for the study: yes Number of clinical cases with USG required or experienced before the study intervention started: not specified Needle Length: not specified Gauge: 20 |
|
| Outcomes | First‐pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, number of attempts, pain, overall complications Definition of successful cannulation: blood return from a catheter, smooth normal saline flush, and no signs of extravasation |
|
| Funding | None | |
| Declarations of interest | Not specified | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Participants were assigned alternately to USG and LM in the order in which they were seen. Not consecutive cases |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | This was a systematically allocated trial |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) First‐pass success of cannulation | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. One of the co‐authors assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Overall‐success of cannulation | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. One of the co‐authors assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Pain | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. One of the co‐authors assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Number of attempts | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. One of the co‐authors assessed the outcome |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Overall complications | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. One of the co‐authors assessed the outcome |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) First‐pass success of cannulation | Low risk | No dropouts from the analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Overall success of cannulation | Low risk | No dropouts from the analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Pain | Low risk | No dropouts from the analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Number of attempts | Low risk | No dropouts from the analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Overall complications | Low risk | No dropouts from the analysis |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No study register or protocol was available |
| Other bias | Low risk | No concerns about other sources of bias |
| Overall risk First‐pass success of cannulation | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Overall success of cannulation | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Pain | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Number of attempts | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Overall complications | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |