Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106243›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae for delivery of parenteral nutrition in neonates.

S B Ainsworth, L Clerihew, W McGuire

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Randomized trial of percutaneous central venous lines versus peripheral intravenous lines.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2007
    Trial
  5. Analysis of the potential risk of central intravenous lines and/or total parenteral nutrition with ventriculoatrial shunts.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Feeding the preterm infant.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S B AinsworthDirectorate of Women and Children's Health, NHS Fife (Acute Hospitals), Forth Park Hospital, Bennochy Road, Kirkcaldy, Fife, UK, KY2 5RA.
L Clerihew
W McGuire
Ninewells Hospital · GBNHS Fife · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParenteral nutrition for newborn infants may be delivered via short peripheral cannulae or central venous catheters, which are usually sited percutaneously. The method of delivery may affect nutrient input, and consequently growth and development. Although potentially more difficult to site, percutaneous central venous catheters may be more stable than peripheral cannulae, and need less frequent replacement. These methods may also be associated with different risks of adverse events, including acquired systemic infection and extravasation injury.

objectivesTo review the evidence from randomised controlled trials that, in newborn infants who require parenteral nutrition, infusion via a percutaneous central venous catheter versus a peripheral cannula improves nutrient input, and growth and development, without increasing adverse consequences including systemic infection, or extravasation injuries. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 - October 2003), EMBASE (1980 - October 2003), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of delivering parenteral nutrition via percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae in newborn infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author, and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and mean difference. MAIN

resultsWe found three trials eligible for inclusion. These recruited a total of 262 infants and reported a number of different outcomes. One study showed that the use of a percutaneous central venous catheter was associated with a decreased risk of cumulative nutritional deficit during the trial period: Mean difference in the percentage of the prescribed nutritional intake actually received: -7.1% (95% confidence interval -11.2, -3.2). In another trial, infants in the percutaneous central venous catheter group needed significantly fewer catheters/cannulae per infant during the trial period: Mean difference in the number of catheters/cannulae per infant: -3.2 (95% confidence interval -5.13, -1.27). Meta-analysis of data from two trials did not find any evidence of an effect on the incidence of systemic infection: Typical relative risk: 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.62, 1.32); typical risk difference: -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.17, 0.10). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsData from one small study suggest that the use of percutaneous central venous catheters to deliver parenteral nutrition in newborn infants improves nutrient input. The significance of this in relation to longer-term growth and developmental outcomes is unclear. Another study suggested that the use of percutaneous central venous catheters rather than peripheral cannulae decreases the number of catheters/cannulae needed to deliver the nutrition. We have not found any evidence that percutaneous central venous catheter use increases the risk of adverse events, particularly systemic infection.

Indexed as

Infant, NewbornCatheterization, Central VenousCatheterization, PeripheralHumansParenteral NutritionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15106243
OpenAlexW4235878196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.