SynthesisIntensive care medicine2007
Anti-infective-treated central venous catheters: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Copas-Heckman-Type Sensitivity Analysis for Publication Bias in Rare-Event Meta-Analysis Under Generalized Linear Mixed Models.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of biofilm related infections.International journal of molecular sciences · 2013Review
- Cost effectiveness of antimicrobial catheters in the intensive care unit: addressing uncertainty in the decision.Critical care (London, England) · 2009Article
- On the way towards eradication of catheter-related infections!Intensive care medicine · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review assesses the effect of anti-infective-treated central venous catheters (CVCs) on catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in the acute care setting.
methodsRandomized controlled trials were retrieved from Medline and the Cochrane Library up to 15 January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data for CRBSI were combined where appropriate, using a random effects model. The impact of the risk for CRBSI in the control group (baseline risk) on the benefit of anti-infective CVCs was studied by using meta-regression based on the binomial normal bivariate meta-analysis model.
resultsTwenty-one trials were included in the review. Mainly intensive care (IC) patients were studied. Eighteen trials showed that anti-infective CVCs reduced the risk of CRBSI. The number needed to treat (NNT) varied from 182 to 12, with baseline risks ranging from 1% to 10%. Nearly all trials had serious methodological shortcomings. Three trials comparing minocycline-rifampicin-treated catheters with antiseptic-treated catheters showed inconsistent results. One trial suggested that there is not any difference in CRBSI between heparin- and antiseptic-treated CVCs.
conclusionBecause the NNT is large when the baseline risk is low, the use of anti-infective-treated CVCs in the acute care setting should only be considered in situations in which background rates of CRBSI are high. The magnitude of benefit as calculated in this review should be interpreted with caution because of strong arguments in favor of a systematic overestimation of the effect. Which type of anti-infective catheter is most effective could not be established from the available data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.