ArticlePloS one2017
Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Prevention of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheter insertion techniques in newborns: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Pooled it
- Venous Access: National Guideline and Registry Development (VANGUARD): Advancing Patient-Centered Venous Access Care Through the Development of a National Coordinated Registry Network.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Guideline
- Trial
- Preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure by reducing mechanical irritation.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Assessing the feasibility of a platform trial for Gram negative bloodstream infections: results from the vanguard phase of BALANCE.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Prevention of device-related infections in patients with cancer: Current practice and future horizons.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2023Review
- Experiences of children with central venous access devices: a mixed-methods study.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- ECMO in neonates: The association between cerebral hemodynamics with neurological function.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Spontaneous Knot Formation in a Central Venous Catheter.The American journal of case reports · 2021Article
- International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study.BMJ quality & safety · 2021Article
- Unexpected tunnelled central venous access demise: a single institutional study from the UK.Pediatric surgery international · 2021Article
- Indirect comparison of intravenous vs. subcutaneous C1-inhibitor placebo-controlled trials for routine prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for central venous access devices, however, high complication rates remain. Scoping reviews map the available evidence and demonstrate evidence deficiencies to focus ongoing research priorities.
methodA scoping review (January 2006-December 2015) of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve central venous access device outcomes; including peripherally inserted central catheters, non-tunneled, tunneled and totally implanted venous access catheters. MeSH terms were used to undertake a systematic search with data extracted by two independent researchers, using a standardized data extraction form.
resultsIn total, 178 trials were included (78 non-tunneled [44%]; 40 peripherally inserted central catheters [22%]; 20 totally implanted [11%]; 12 tunneled [6%]; 6 non-specified [3%]; and 22 combined device trials [12%]). There were 119 trials (68%) involving adult participants only, with 18 (9%) pediatric and 20 (11%) neonatal trials. Insertion-related themes existed in 38% of trials (67 RCTs), 35 RCTs (20%) related to post-insertion patency, with fewer trials on infection prevention (15 RCTs, 8%), education (14RCTs, 8%), and dressing and securement (12 RCTs, 7%). There were 46 different study outcomes reported, with the most common being infection outcomes (161 outcomes; 37%), with divergent definitions used for catheter-related bloodstream and other infections.
conclusionMore high quality randomized trials across central venous access device management are necessary, especially in dressing and securement and patency. These can be encouraged by having more studies with multidisciplinary team involvement and consumer engagement. Additionally, there were extensive gaps within population sub-groups, particularly in tunneled devices, and in pediatrics and neonates. Finally, outcome definitions need to be unified for results to be meaningful and comparable across studies.
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.