River 2009.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised, open‐label trial | |
| Participants | Setting: ED Number of participants: 47 (USG 26, LM 21) Age, mean (SD) years: not specified Difficulty: difficult (2 prior unsuccessful attempts with LM) Sites of peripheral veins: not specified | |
| Interventions |
Technique
LM vs USG:
Machine: not specified
Axis: not specified
Guidance: not specified Operator Profession: nurse Number of operators: not specified Experience of USG before the study: yes Length of experience with USG before the study: several months 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: not specified |
|
| Outcomes | Overall success of cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction Definition of successful cannulation: not specified Definition of start and end of time measurement: not specified |
|
| Funding | Not specified | |
| Declarations of interest | Not specified | |
| Notes | We attempted to contact the authors to obtain additional information but were unable to reach them. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No description of randomisation process |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No description of randomisation process |
| 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. Who assessed the outcome was not specified |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Procedure time for overall cannulation | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. Who assessed the outcome was not specified |
| 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. Who assessed the outcome was not specified |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Patient satisfaction | High risk | Blinding of participants and operators is impossible due to the nature of the intervention. Who assessed the outcome was not specified |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Overall success of cannulation | Low risk | The outcome was available for all participants |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Procedure time for overall cannulation | Unclear risk | No mention of which participants were assessed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Number of attempts | Low risk | The outcome was available for all participants |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Patient satisfaction | Low risk | The outcome was available for all participants |
| 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 Overall success of cannulation | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |
| Overall risk Procedure time for overall cannulation | 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 Patient satisfaction | High risk | At least one domain was at high risk |