SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled 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
- Bench-to-bedside review: Challenges of diagnosis, care and prevention of central catheter-related bloodstream infections in children.Critical care (London, England) · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUncertainty exists regarding the management of central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates with bloodstream infections. Early CVC removal may reduce the risk of persistent or complicated infection and its associated morbidity and mortality. However, since CVCs provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management need to be considered.
objectivesTo determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of CVCs on morbidity and mortality in neonates with bloodstream infections.. 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, 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2011), EMBASE (1980 to January 2011), CINAHL (1982 to January 2011), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of CVCs in neonates with bloodstream infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN
resultsWe did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of CVCs in neonates with bloodstream infections. While observational data generally indicate that early removal is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection, caution should be exercised in applying these findings to practice because of inherent biases in the study design. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.
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.