Pediatric Intravenous Insertion in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intravenous catheters are usually inserted with the bevel facing up. Bevel down may be superior in small and/or dehydrated children. We seek to determine whether there is a difference in the success rate of intravenous insertion using these 2 methods. METHODS: We recruited children requiring an intravenous catheter in the emergency department where there was time to obtain consent. Patients were randomized to have the first attempt bevel up or bevel down. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the alternate technique was used on second attempt. Attempts beyond 2 were not tracked. RESULTS: We recruited 428 patients. Data are available from 396 (201 bevel-up and 195 bevel-down techniques). At least 63 different nurses participated. The nurses participated in the study a median number of 2 times (maximum, 36). Four nurses used the bevel-down technique more than 10 times. The success rate on first attempt was 75.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.8-81.4) for bevel up and 60% (95% CI, 53.2-66.8) for bevel down. The success rate on second attempt was 56.8% (95% CI, 45.3-68.2) for bevel up and 42.9% (95% CI, 30.3-55.5) for bevel down. In the subgroup of infants weighing less than 5 kg, there was no difference between the 2 techniques on the first attempt, with bevel up having a success of 33% (95% CI, 8.4-57.6) and bevel down 30% (95% CI, 4.1-55.9). CONCLUSIONS: The bevel-up technique performed superior to bevel-down technique in this study. The bevel-down technique might be useful in small infants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".