Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27000057›Full record

ArticleNutrition journal2016

Development and evaluation of a test program for Y-site compatibility testing of total parenteral nutrition and intravenous drugs.

Vigdis Staven, Siri Wang, Ingrid Grønlie, Ingunn Tho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Vigdis StavenHospital Pharmacy of North Norway Trust, Tromsø, Norway.
Siri WangDepartment for Medicinal Product Assessment, Norwegian Medicines Agency, Oslo, Norway.
Ingrid GrønlieHospital Pharmacy, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ingunn ThoDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Ingunn.tho@farmasi.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4241-4183
Direktoratet for medisinske produkter · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NONordland Hospital Trust · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no standardized procedure or consensus to which tests should be performed to judge compatibility/incompatibility of intravenous drugs. The purpose of this study was to establish and evaluate a test program of methods suitable for detection of physical incompatibility in Y-site administration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and drugs.

methodsEight frequently used methods (dynamic light scattering, laser diffraction, light obscuration, turbidimetry, zeta potential, light microscopy, pH-measurements and visual examination using Tyndall beams), were scrutinized to elucidate strengths and weaknesses for compatibility testing. The responses of the methods were tested with samples containing precipitation of calcium phosphate and with heat destabilized TPN emulsions. A selection of drugs (acyclovir, ampicillin, ondansetron and paracetamol) was mixed with 3-in-1 TPN admixtures (Olimel® N5E, Kabiven® and SmofKabiven®) to assess compatibility (i.e. potential precipitates and emulsion stability). The obtained compatibility data was interpreted according to theory and compared to existing compatibility literature to further check the validity of the methods.

resultsLight obscuration together with turbidimetry, visual inspection and pH-measurements were able to capture signs of precipitations. For the analysis of emulsion stability, light obscuration and estimation of percent droplets above 5 μm (PFAT5) seemed to be the most sensitive method; however laser diffraction and monitoring changes in pH might be a useful support. Samples should always be compared to unmixed controls to reveal changes induced by the mixing. General acceptance criteria are difficult to define, although some limits are suggested based on current experience. The experimental compatibility data was supported by scattered reports in literature, further confirming the suitability of the test program. However, conflicting data are common, which complicates the comparison to existing literature.

conclusionsTesting of these complex blends should be based on a combination of several methods and accompanied by theoretical considerations.

Indexed as

Drug EvaluationFat Emulsions, IntravenousHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationNephelometry and TurbidimetryParenteral Nutrition, TotalParticle SizeFat Emulsions, IntravenousEmulsion stabilityIncompatibilityLight obscurationOil droplet sizeParallel infusionParticle contentParticle sizePrecipitationTurbidityZeta potential

Identifiers

PMID27000057
PMCPMC4802595
OpenAlexW2305168078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.