↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation for paediatrics

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation for paediatrics
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011364.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Aouad-Maroun, Christian K Raphael, Samia K Sayyid, Fadi Farah, Elie A Akl

Abstract

Arterial line cannulation in paediatric patients is traditionally performed by palpation or with Doppler auditory assistance in locating the artery before catheterization. It is not clear whether ultrasound guidance offers benefits over these methods. To assess first attempt success rates and complication rates when ultrasound guidance is used for arterial line placement in the paediatric population, as compared with traditional techniques (palpation, Doppler auditory assistance), at all potential sites for arterial cannulation (left or right radial, ulnar, brachial, femoral or dorsalis pedis artery). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid). We also searched databases of ongoing trials (ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister (www.controlled-trials.com/), the EU Clinical Trials register (www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). We tried to identify other potentially eligible trials by searching the reference lists of retrieved included trials and related systematic or other reviews. We searched until January 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound guidance versus palpation or Doppler auditory assistance to guide arterial line cannulation in paediatrics. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane meta-analytical procedures, and we applied the GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence. We included five RCTs reporting 444 arterial cannulations in paediatric participants. Four RCTs compared ultrasound with palpation, and one compared ultrasound with Doppler auditory assistance.Risk of bias varied across studies, with some studies lacking details of allocation concealment. It was not possible to blind practitioners in all of the included studies; this adds a performance bias that is inherent to the type of intervention studied in our review. Only two studies reported the rate of complications.Meta-analysis showed that ultrasound guidance produces superior success rates at first attempt (risk ratio (RR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.85, 404 catheters, four RCTs, moderate-quality evidence) and fewer complications, such as haematoma formation (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60, 222 catheters, two RCTs, moderate-quality evidence). Our results suggest, but do not confirm, that a possible advantage of ultrasound guidance for the first attempt success rate over other techniques is more pronounced in infants and small children than in older children. Similarly, our results suggest, but do not confirm, the possibility of a positive influence of expertise in the use of ultrasound on the first attempt success rate. We also found improved success rates within two attempts (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.51, 134 catheters, two RCTs, moderate-quality evidence) with ultrasound guidance compared with other types of guidance. No studies reported data about ischaemic damage. We rated the quality of evidence for all outcomes as moderate owing to imprecision due to wide confidence intervals, modest sample sizes and limited numbers of events. We identified moderate-quality evidence suggesting that ultrasound guidance for radial artery cannulation improves first and second attempt success rates and decreases the rate of complications as compared with palpation or Doppler auditory assistance. The improved success rate at the first attempt may be more pronounced in infants and small children, in whom arterial line cannulation is more challenging than in older children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Other 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Lecturer 7 7%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 22 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Computer Science 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 26 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,903,602
of 12,357,066 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,864
of 8,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,059
of 263,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,357,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.