Infrared Devices Versus Traditional Palpation Approach for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Only five randomised trials were included, involving 690 patients, and the authors judged the evidence quality low. The studies were small and heterogeneous, with wide confidence intervals; only two trials had more than 100 patients. Some trials had risk of bias from randomisation, deviations from planned interventions and missing outcome data; in one trial, 36/86 (42%) randomised patients could not be analysed. Blinding was not possible, and definitions of success and time varied across trials. Few trials reported difficult intravenous access status or allowed a separate analysis for those patients, so it is unclear whether this high-risk group would benefit. The review searched only English and French studies and did not assess reporting bias because fewer than 10 studies were included.

Several authors reported financial relationships with vascular access and medical device companies, including employer research grants, consultancy payments, education grants, product donations and congress funding. Some listed authors reported no conflicts of interest. No separate funding source is stated in the supplied text.

Do not read the 42% versus 38% first-attempt success rates as proof that infrared devices improve insertion. The pooled risk ratio was 1.08 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.69 to 1.70, the studies were small and heterogeneous, and pain was 0.43 points higher on a 0 to 10 scale.