Are routine chest radiographs still indicated after central line insertion? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Central venous catheters are increasingly inserted using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) guidance. Following insertion, it is still common to request a confirmatory chest radiograph for subclavian and internal jugular lines, at least outside of the operating theater. This scoping review addresses: (i) the justification for routine post-insertion radiographs, (ii) whether it would better to use post-insertion POCUS instead, and (iii) the perceived barriers to change. Methods: We searched the electronic databases, Ovid MEDLINE (1946-) and Ovid EMBASE (1974-), using the MESH terms ("Echography" OR "Ultrasonography" OR "Ultrasound") AND "Central Venous Catheter" up until February 2023. We also searched clinical practice guidelines, and targeted literature, including cited and citing articles. We included adults (⩾18 years) and English and French language publications. We included randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, systematic reviews, and surveys. Results: Four thousand seventy-one articles were screened, 117 full-text articles accessed, and 41 retained. Thirteen examined cardiac/vascular methods; 5 examined isolated contrast-enhanced ultrasonography; 7 examined isolated rapid atrial swirl sign; and 13 examined combined/integrated methods. In addition, three systematic reviews/meta-analyses and one survey addressed barriers to POCUS adoption. Discussion: We believe that the literature supports retiring the routine post-central line chest radiograph. This is not only because POCUS has made line insertion safer, but because POCUS performs at least as well, and is associated with less radiation, lower cost, time savings, and greater accuracy. There has been less written about perceived barriers to change, but the literature shows that these concerns- which include upfront costs, time-to-train, medicolegal concerns and habit- can be challenged and hence overcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".