Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26550111›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Anticoagulant therapies versus heparin for the prevention of hemodialysis catheter-related complications: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Jinrui Liu, Chang'an Wang, Hongfei Zhao, Jinghua Zhang, Jie Ma, Yuanyuan Hou, Hongbin Zou

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jinrui LiuDepartment of Renal Transplantation and Nephropathy, The Seventh People's Hospital of Zhengzhou City China.
Chang'an WangDepartment of Renal Transplantation and Nephropathy, The Seventh People's Hospital of Zhengzhou City China.
Hongfei ZhaoDepartment of Blood Transfusion, The Seventh People's Hospital of Zhengzhou City China.
Jinghua ZhangDepartment of Renal Transplantation and Nephropathy, The Seventh People's Hospital of Zhengzhou City China.
Jie MaDepartment of Nephropathy, The Second Hospital of Jilin University China.
Yuanyuan HouDepartment of Pediatrics, The Second Part of the First Hospital, Jilin University China.
Hongbin ZouDepartment of Nephropathy, The Second Hospital of Jilin University China.
Seventh People's Hospital of Shanghai · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Jilin University · CNJilin University · CNZhengzhou People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Locking of central venous catheters with heparin is an accepted practice to maintain catheter patency between dialysis sessions. However, this practice may cause other adverse reactions. Although many studies suggest benefits of other catheter lock solutions over heparin on these grounds, no consensus has been reached for clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared antimicrobial-containing or citrate-alone catheter lock solutions with heparin alone in patients undergoing hemodialysis with central venous catheters. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for articles published through June 2014. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) and catheter malfunction (CM). The secondary outcomes were bleeding, exit-site infection (ESI), clinical sepsis, and all-cause mortality. Seventeen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that antimicrobial-containing and citrate-alone lock solutions were superior to heparin for preventing CRB (both P < 0.01). Although antimicrobial-containing lock solutions significantly affected clinical sepsis (P < 0.01), they did not affect ESI, bleeding, or all-cause mortality. Incidence of CM episodes was lower in patients receiving antibiotics + heparin and gentamicin + citrate (both P < 0.05), while other antimicrobial-containing and citrate-alone lock solutions showed no difference. Only citrate-alone lock solutions significantly decreased bleeding and ESI episodes (both P < 0.05). Compared with heparin, antimicrobial-containing lock solutions more effectively prevent CRB and clinical sepsis. Antibiotics + heparin and gentamicin + citrate solutions showing better prevention of CM. Citrate-alone lock solutions result in fewer CRB, bleeding and ESI episodes.

Indexed as

Catheter lock solutionshemodialysisheparinmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26550111
PMCPMC4612796
OpenAlexW2415281764

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.