Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2007
Randomized trial of percutaneous central venous lines versus peripheral intravenous lines.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2007. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Antimicrobial dressings for the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants with central venous catheters.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae for delivery of parenteral nutrition in neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Correcting Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement by External Manipulation of the Upper Limb Extremity.Cureus · 2024Article
- Comparison of Risks from Central Venous Catheters and Peripheral Intravenous Lines among Term Neonates in a Tertiary Care Hospital, India.Journal of caring sciences · 2021Article
- Umbilical Venous Catheters and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are They Equally Safe in VLBW Infants? A Non-Randomized Single Center Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Observational
- A clinical study on drug-related problems associated with intravenous drug administration.Journal of basic and clinical pharmacy · 2014Article
- Peripheral insertion of double-lumen central venous catheter using the Seldinger technique in newborns.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the occurrence of systemic infection or death in preterm infants with elective percutaneous central line (PCVL) placement versus peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) placement. STUDY
designA total of 96 infants < or =1250 g or < or =30 weeks gestation were randomized by 4 days of age to elective placement of a PCVL or continued use of PIV catheters. The primary outcome of systemic infection (defined as a positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture treated for at least 5 days) or death was monitored until the infants did not require intravenous (iv) support for 7 consecutive days.
resultsSystemic infection or death occurred in 17/46 (39%) infants in the PCVL group and 14/50 (28%) in the PIV group (relative risk (RR)=1.32 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70, 2.53; risk difference (RD)=0.09 with 95% CI -0.10, 0.28). The PCVL group had significantly fewer skin punctures for iv access.
conclusionThere was no significant difference in systemic infection or death (expressed either as a combined outcome or as separate component outcomes) between the groups. The number of skin punctures was significantly reduced in the PCVL group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17262041What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.