Trial reportBMJ open2015
Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients--the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06589284 (Skin Glue Versus Suture for Securing Radial Arterial Lines), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Skin Glue Versus Suture for Securing Radial Arterial Lines
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Different Dressing and Securement Methods for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- A comparison of first-attempt cannulation success of peripheral venous catheter systems with and without wings and injection ports in surgical patients-a randomized trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Trial
- Effectiveness of securing central venous catheters with topical tissue adhesive in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled pilot study.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Trial
- Trial
- An Explanatory Model of Vascular Access Care Quality: Results of a Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- A Primer and Literature Review on Internal and External Retention Mechanisms for Catheter Fixation.Cureus · 2022Review
- In-line filtration reduced phlebitis associated with peripheral venous cannulation: Focus on cost-effectiveness and patients' perspectives.The journal of vascular access · 2020Article
- Article
- Infection risks associated with peripheral vascular catheters.Journal of infection prevention · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration and/or infection. This results in interrupted medical therapy; painful phlebitis and reinsertions; increased hospital length of stay, morbidity and mortality from infections; and wasted medical/nursing time. Appropriate PIV dressing and securement may prevent many cases of PIV failure, but little comparative data exist regarding the efficacy of various PIV dressing and securement methods. This trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 methods of PIV dressing and securement in preventing PIV failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 4 arms, 3 experimental groups (tissue adhesive, bordered polyurethane dressing, sutureless securement device) and 1 control (standard polyurethane dressing) is planned. There will be a 3-year recruitment of 1708 adult patients, with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised web-based service. The primary outcome is PIV failure which includes any of: dislodgement, occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and infection. Secondary outcomes include: types of PIV failure, PIV dwell time, costs, device colonisation, skin colonisation, patient and staff satisfaction. Relative incidence rates of device failure per 100 devices and per 1000 device days with 95% CIs will summarise the impact of each dressing, and test differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare device failure over time. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric or non-parametric techniques appropriate to level of measurement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been received from Queensland Health (HREC/11/QRCH/152) and Griffith University (NRS/46/11/HREC). Results will be published according to the CONSORT statement and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN); 12611000769987.
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.