Ultrasound or near-infrared vascular imaging to guide peripheral intravenous catheterization in children: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheterization in children is challenging, and success rates vary greatly. We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to determine whether the use of ultrasound or near-infrared vascular imaging to guide catheterization would be more effective than the standard approach in achieving successful catheter placement on the first attempt. METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of 418 children in a pediatric emergency department who required peripheral intravenous catheterization between June 2010 to August 2012. We stratified them by age (≤ 3 yr and > 3 yr) and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure with the standard approach, or with the help of either ultrasound or near-infrared vascular imaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had successful placement of a catheter on the first attempt. RESULTS: The rate of successful first attempts did not differ significantly between either of the 2 intervention groups and the standard approach group (differences in proportions -3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.2% to 6.5%, for ultrasound imaging; -8.7%, 95% CI -19.4% to 1.9%, for near-infrared imaging). Among children 3 years and younger, the difference in success rates relative to standard care was also not significant for ultrasound imaging (-9.6%, 95% CI -29.8% to 10.6%), but it was significantly worse for near-infrared imaging (-20.1%, 95% CI -40.1% to -0.2%). Among children older than 3 years, the differences in success rates relative to standard care were smaller but not significant (-2.3%, 95% CI -13.6% to 9.0%, for ultrasound imaging; -4.1%, 95% CI -15.7% to 7.5%, for near-infrared imaging). None of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant in any of the outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Neither technology improved first-attempt success rates of peripheral intravenous catheterization in children, even in the younger group. These findings do not support investment in these technologies for routine peripheral intravenous catheterization in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01133652.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".