Skip to main content

Table 2 Outcomes regarding feasibility, prevalence, accuracy parameters, and time to measurement of included studies

From: Bedside ultrasound to detect central venous catheter misplacement and associated iatrogenic complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Feasibility

Prevalence of pneumothorax (%)

Prevalence of malposition (%)

Specificity (95% CI)1

Sensitivity (95% CI)2

Mean time for US (min) (±SD)4 [IQR]

Mean time for CXR performance (min) (±SD)4 [IQR]

Mean time for CXR interpretation (min) (±SD)4 [IQR]

Killu et al. (2010) [47]

100%

0%

100.0 (47.8–100)

4.2

Kim et al. (2015) [26]

92%

0%

100 (92.0–100)

11 (0.72)

111 (31)

Kim et al. (2016) [25]

100%

0%

100 (81.5–100)

Baviskar et al. (2015) [48]

100%

0%

100 (86.3–100)

0.75 (0.25)

Cortellaro et al. (2014) [49]

100%

8.4%

98.5 (91.7–100)

33.3 (4.3–77.7)

4 (1)

288 (216)

Duran-Gehring et al. (2015) [50]

92%

4.3%

6.5%

100 (91.8–100)

33.3 (0.8–90.6)

5 (0.8)

28.2 (11.3)

299 (90.5)

Gekle et al. (2015) [51]

100%

0%

0%

100 (94.7–100)

8.80 (1.34)

 

45.78 (8.75)

Kamalipour et al. (2016) [52]

89.7%

15.4%

97.7 (92.0–99.7)

68.8 (41.0–89.0)

Lanza et al. (2006) [53]

100%

0.9%

11.2%

100 (96.2–100)

83.3 (51.0–97.7)

Salimi et al.* (2015) [17]

100%

30.5%

91.2 (80.7–97.1)

28.0 (12.1–49.4)

Santarsia et al. (2000) [54]

100%

1.9%

100 (93.3–100)

100 (2.5–100)

Weekes et al. (2014) [55]

96.6%

2.7%

100 (97.5–100)

75.0 (19.4–99.4)

Weekes et al. (2016) [56]

97.4%

2.6%

100 (97.5–100)

75.0 (19.4–99.4)

1.1 (0.7)

20 (30)

Wen et al. (2014) [57]

100%

0.9%

100 (98.3–100)

100 (15.8–100)

3.2 (1.1)

28.3 (25.7)

Alonso-Quintela et al. (2015) [58]

100%

11.8%

95.6 (84.9–99.5)

100 (54.1–100)

2.23 (1.06)

22.96 (20.43)

Maury et al. (2001) [59]

98.8%

1.2%

10.7%

100 (95.2–100)

100 (66.4–100)

6.8 (3.5)

80.3 (66.7)

Miccini et al. (2016) [46]

100%

1.0%

1.3%

100 (98.8–100)

100 (39.8–100)

Park et al. (2014) [60]

96.2%

0%

100 (96.4–100)

Arellano et al. (2014) [27]

94%

0%

96.8 (91.0–99.3)

Bedel et al. (2013) [24]

97%

0%

6.2%

100 (96.0–100)

83.3 (35.9–99.6)

1.76 (1.3)

49 (31)

103 (81)

Blans et al. (2016) [18]

98.1%

0%

5.8%

98.0 (89.4–99.9)

0 (0–70.8)

24.5 [18.1–45.3]

Matsushima and Frankel (2010) [19]

71%

0%

16.9%

98.0 (89.4–99.9)

50.0 (18.7–81.3)

10.8

75.3

Meggiolaro et al. (2015) [32]

100%

0%

13.3%

100 (96.0–100)

64.3 (35.1–87.2)

5.0 [5.0-10.0]

67.0 [42.0–84.0]

Vezzani et al. (2010) [31]

89.2%

1.8%

28.3%

95.8 (88.1–99.1)

92.9 (76.5–99.1)

10 (5)

83 (79)

Zanobetti et al. (2013) [61]

100%

2.0%

4.4%

100 (98.1–100)

55.6 (21.2–86.3)

5 (3)

65 (74)

Pooled (patients, n)

 

(patients, n = 1267)

(patients, n = 2548)

  

(patients, n = 1362)

(patients, n = 749)

(patients, n = 777)

 All studies (2548)

96.8%

1.1%

6.8%

98.4 (97.8–99.5)

68.2 (54.4–79.4)

2.83 (95% CI: 2.77–2.89)

34.7 (95% CI: 32.6–36.7)

46.3 (95% CI: 44.4–48.2)

 Supraclavicular ultrasound (76)

94.6%

0%

100 (94.4–100)3

   

 TTE and CEUS (1195)

97.7%

1.4%

6.8%

98.9 (96.1–99.7)

68.7 (61.7–96.4)

   

 Vascular ultrasound and TTE (729)

98.1%

0.8%

3.4%

99.0 (96.5–99.7)

96.1 (79.7–99.4)

   

 Vascular ultrasound, TTE and CEUS (548)

93.3%

1.4%

12.3%

98.6 (96.1–99.5)

56.2 (32.8–77.1)

   
  1. CEUS contrast enhance ultrasound, CI confidence interval, CXR chest x-ray, IQR interquartile range, SD standard deviation, TTE transthoracic echocardiography, US ultrasound
  2. *Accuracy CXR investigated; TTE used as reference standard
  3. 1One-sided 97.5% confidence interval in case specificity is estimated to be 100%
  4. 2One-sided 97.5% confidence interval in case sensitivity is estimated to be 100%
  5. 3Exact confidence intervals (not taking into account between-study differences); GEE model not estimable as all controls were correctly identified
  6. 4Values shown as mean (SD) or median [IQR]