Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42088151›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2026

First attempt success rate of intraosseous access in preterm infants and neonates: a systematic review.

Markus Ortner, Alexandra Kaider, Georg Heinze, Tamara Odar, Ewald Unger, Gunpreet Coudert Oberoi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Markus OrtnerCentre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Alexandra KaiderInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Georg HeinzeInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Tamara OdarADAX d.o.o., Bravničarjeva ulica 13, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ewald UngerCentre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Gunpreet Coudert OberoiCentre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: While intraosseous (IO) access is an established and safe alternative route for vascular access in children and adults when intravenous (IV) access is not possible, its use in preterm and term neonates ≤28 days and young infants remains challenging. Success rates are lower in preterm infants and neonates due to anatomical and technical factors. We conducted a systematic literature review to examine the first-attempt success rates of tibial IO access in preterm and term neonates and young infants, comparing clinical outcomes with anatomical evidence to identify limitations, complications, and gaps in device suitability for this vulnerable population. Data sources: Data were obtained through systematic searches of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies. The search was conducted in December 2025, using predefined search terms. Study selection: Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective clinical and cadaveric studies and reported per‑leg first‑attempt outcomes involving preterm and term neonates and young infants ≤6 months and ≤8 kg, reporting success rates for drill-assisted tibial IO access. Manual-assisted access methods, simulation and animal studies were excluded. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on study design, population, device type, success rates, and complications. Data synthesis: A total of six studies were included, comprising 108 documented tibial intraosseous (IO) insertions. Clinical data accounted for 40 attempts, with 23 successful first attempts, while cadaveric data included 68 tibial sites, with 30 successful insertions. Using random-effects meta-analysis models applied separately to each study group, the combined first-attempt success rate in clinical studies was 54.1% [95% CI: 30.6-75.9%]. In cadaveric studies, the combined success rate was 44.1% [95% CI: 32.9-56.1%]. These success rates are substantially lower than those reported for older children and adults, in whom first-attempt IO placement typically exceeds 80-95% with drill-assisted systems. The decrease in preterm and term neonatal success reflects the anatomical, technical, and procedural challenges unique to this population. Conclusions: First-attempt intraosseous access success in neonates and young infants appears lower than in older paediatric populations, likely due to anatomical limitations and the use of devices not specifically designed for this patient group. Neonatal-specific device development and further prospective research are needed to improve procedural success and safety.

Indexed as

Emergency treatmentInfantInfusionsIntraosseousNewborn

Identifiers

PMID42088151
PMCPMC13138175

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.