↓ Skip to main content

Practice of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter technique by the French intensivists: a survey from the BoReal study group

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Practice of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter technique by the French intensivists: a survey from the BoReal study group
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0177-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julien Maizel, Marie-Anaïs Bastide, Jack Richecoeur, Eric Frenoy, Christian Lemaire, Bertrand Sauneuf, Hervé Dupont, Fabienne Tamion, Saad Nseir, Damien Du Cheyron, the BoReal Study group

Abstract

The ultrasound (US)-guided technique has been recommended for central venous catheter (CVC) placement in critical care. However, several surveys have shown that the majority of physicians continue to perform landmark procedures. In our region, we have implemented special courses to promote the use of US with formal training and simulators. Ultrasound machines have also been installed in almost every ICU in our area. We designed a survey to investigate whether the training program established for years and the widespread of ultrasound devices in the ICU of our region will be associated with a high rate of physicians performing US procedures. A survey comprising 14 questions was designed to elicit information on training in US techniques, the use of US for CVC placement, reasons for nonuse of US and their opinion concerning the need to teach the landmark technique to residents. This survey was electronically sent to every physician of the BoReal study group (32 ICUs located in the North West of France). We received 190 responses (response rate 66 %) including 34 % of residents. Only 11 % of respondents reported the absence of training in the US technique, and 3 % reported they did not have access to an ultrasound machine. A total of 68 % declared "always" (18 %) or "almost always" (50 %) using US to guide CVC placement. Our results are better than those of previous surveys. The main reasons why physicians did not use the US technique were that they thought that US guidance was unnecessary (36 %) or because the ultrasound machine was not immediately available (33 %). Ninety-one percentages think that the landmark technique should still be taught to the residents. A higher proportion of residents compared to seniors declared that they always or almost always used the US technique. Training in ultrasound techniques and the widespread availability of ultrasound machines in ICUs seem to improve the rate of US procedures. However, despite strong scientific evidence a proportion of physicians continue to consider the landmark technique as an alternative to US. Training and education are potentially still the best ways to overcome such barriers or conviction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 68%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,269,286
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#758
of 1,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,995
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.