SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early planned removal versus expectant management of peripherally inserted central catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Analysis of portal vein thrombosis prevalence and risk factors in neonates following umbilical venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal de pediatriaPooled it
- Study draft: "UVC-You Will See" study: longer vs. shorter umbilical venous catheter (UVC) dwell time (6-10 vs. 1-5 days) in very premature infants with birth weight < 1250 g and/or gestational age < 30 weeks.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Trial
- Is longer indwelling duration an independent risk factor for UVC-related thrombosis? Insights from a matched case-control analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Chinese guideline for the prevention and control of complications associated to umbilical venous catheterization in neonates (2025).Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Novel ultralow positioning of the umbilical artery catheter: A prospective pilot study.Journal of ultrasonography · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a novel risk classification tool for predicting long length of stay in NICU blood transfusion infants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The effects of maternal voice on pain during placement of peripherally inserted central catheter in neonates.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dwell time and bloodstream infection incidence of umbilical venous catheterization in China.Pediatric investigation · 2023Article
- Vascular perforation of umbilical venous catheter and awaiting it to be shallow.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Imaging of Umbilical Venous Catheter-Related Hepatic Complications in Neonates.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
- Infectious Risks Related to Umbilical Venous Catheter Dwell Time and Its Replacement in Newborns: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Incidence of umbilical vein catheter-associated thrombosis of the portal system: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of hepatology · 2021Article
- Neonatal osteomyelitis: an Italian multicentre report of 22 cases and comparison with the inherent literature.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Review
- A review of umbilical venous catheter-related complications at a tertiary neonatal unit in Singapore.Singapore medical journal · 2021Review
- Association of early skin breaks and neonatal thalamic maturation: A modifiable risk?Neurology · 2020Article
- The danger awaiting premature babies: Portal vein thrombosis.Turk pediatri arsivi · 2020Article
- Quality improvement initiative to decrease time to full feeds and central line utilization among infants born less than or equal to 32 0/7 weeks through compliance with standardized feeding guidelines.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLengthy duration of use may be a risk factor for umbilical venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in newborn infants. Early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) is recommended to reduce the incidence of infection and associated morbidity and mortality.
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of early planned removal of UVCs (up to two weeks after insertion) versus an expectant approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants.To perform subgroup analyses by gestational age at birth and prespecified planned duration of UVC placement (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity"). SEARCH
methodsWe used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Maternity & Infant Care Database (until May 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared effects of early planned removal of UVCs (up to two weeks after insertion) versus an expectant approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently undertook data extraction. We analysed treatment effects and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods. MAIN
resultsWe found one eligible trial. Participants were 210 newborn infants with birth weight less than 1251 grams. The trial was unblinded but otherwise of good methodological quality. This trial compared removal of an umbilical venous catheter within 10 days after insertion (and replacement with a peripheral cannula or a percutaneously inserted central catheter as required) versus expectant management (UVC in place up to 28 days). More infants in the early planned removal group than in the expectant management group (83 vs 33) required percutaneous insertion of a central catheter (PICC). Trial results showed no difference in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.22), in hospital mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.98), in catheter-associated thrombus necessitating removal (RR 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 7.94), or in other morbidity. GRADE assessment indicated that the quality of evidence was "low" at outcome level principally as the result of imprecision and risk of surveillance bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. AUTHORS'
conclusionsCurrently available trial data are insufficient to show whether early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters reduces risk of infection, mortality, or other morbidity in newborn infants. A large, simple, and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve this ongoing uncertainty.
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.