Comparing Malposition and Complications Associated with Ultrasound-Guided versus Radiography-Guided Central Catheter Tip-Position in Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is a growing interest in ultrasound-guided central catheter (CC) tip-position, driven by its potential to improve accuracy and reduce complications. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze studies that reported complications associated with ultrasound-guided versus radiography-guided CC tip-position in neonates. METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing the complications of ultrasound- versus X-ray-guided CC tip-position in neonates up to June 2024. RCTs and NRSs were analyzed separately. The outcomes included malposition, number of X-rays, procedure time, catheter manipulation, cardiac tamponade, extravasation, occlusion, and sepsis rates. Subgroup meta-analysis based on catheter type was performed. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1 and R 4.1.0, and the GRADE methodology was applied to assess evidence certainty. RESULTS: Eight studies (4 RCTs and 4 NRSs, N = 1,322 neonates) were included. Ultrasound-guided catheter tip-position significantly reduced malposition rates (3 RCTs, N = 181, RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.70; 4 NRSs, N = 1,110, RR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.57) and decreased the need for X-rays (2 RCTs, N = 112, MD: -1.22, 95% CI: -2.32 to -0.11; 2 NRSs, N = 401, MD: -0.31, 95% CI: -0.47 to -0.15). No significant differences were found in procedure time, catheter manipulation, or sepsis rates. All evidence was of low certainty per grade. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ultrasound-guided CC tip-position in neonates is associated with a reduction in malposition rates and radiation exposure (low certainty evidence). Further research is needed to confirm the benefits of ultrasound-guided CC tip-position in neonates. .
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 | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".