Claims

Ultrasound guidance improves PVC placement outcomes versus conventional methods primarily in DIVA patients

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Nine out of ten studies comparing ultrasound guidance with conventional methods on patients found a significant difference in time, attempts, or cannulation success rate favouring ultrasound guidance. → Jørgensen Rasmus 2021

Evidence

Jørgensen Rasmus 2021

Jørgensen Rasmus, Laursen Christian B., Konge Lars, Pietersen Pia Iben. (2021). Education in the placement of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheters: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00897-z

q2 · i? · review · r3

Review synthesis of comparative patient studies with traditional (often anatomically guided) PVC placement as control; "Nine out of ten studies found a significant difference in time, attempts, or cannulation success rate favouring ultrasound guidance". No pooled effect size was computed.

"Nine out of ten studies found a significant difference in time, attempts, or cannulation success rate favouring ultrasound guidance compared to conventional methods on patients [16, 19, 32, 52, 60–64], whereas the remaining one did not find any significant difference [65]."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.