Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30333063›Full record

Trial reportTrials2018

Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Nicole Marsh, Joan Webster, Emily Larsen, Jodie Genzel, Marie Cooke, Gabor Mihala, Sue Cadigan, Claire M Rickard

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole MarshRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Joan WebsterRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Emily LarsenRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Jodie GenzelRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Marie CookeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.
Gabor MihalaAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Sue CadiganRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Claire M RickardRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia. c.rickard@griffith.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6341-7415
Griffith University · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are essential invasive devices, with 2 billion PVCs sold each year. The comparative efficacy of expert versus generalist inserter models for successful PVC insertion and subsequent reliable vascular access is unknown.

methodsA single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 138 medical/surgical patients was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Australia to compare PVC insertion by (1) a vascular access specialist (VAS) or (2) any nursing or medical clinician (generalist model). The primary outcome was the feasibility of a larger RCT as established by predetermined criteria (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence). Secondary outcomes were PVC failure: phlebitis, infiltration/extravasation, occlusion, accidental removal or partial dislodgement, local infection or catheter-related bloodstream infection; dwell time; insertion success, insertion attempts; patient satisfaction; and procedural cost-effectiveness.

resultsFeasibility outcomes were achieved: 92% of screened patients were eligible; two patients refused participation; there was no attrition or missing outcome data. PVC failure was higher with generalists (27/50, 54%) than with VASs (33/69, 48%) (228 versus 217 per 1000 PVC days; incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.80). There were no local or PVC-related infections in either group. All PVCs (n = 69) were successfully inserted in the VAS group. In the generalist group, 19 (28%) patients did not have a PVC inserted. There were inadequate data available for the cost-effectiveness analysis, but the mean insertion procedure time was 2 min in the VAS group and 11 min in the generalist group. Overall satisfaction with the PVC was measured on an 11-point scale (0 = not satisfied and 10 = satisfied) and was higher in the VAS group (n = 43; median = 7) compared to the generalist group (n = 20; median = 4.5). The multivariable model identified medical diagnosis and bed-bound status as being significantly associated with higher PVC failure, and securement with additional non-sterile tape was significantly associated with lower PVC failure.

conclusionThis pilot trial confirmed the feasibility and need for a large, multicentre RCT to test these PVC insertion models.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001675415 . Registered on 6 December 2016.

Indexed as

Catheters, IndwellingAgedCatheterization, PeripheralCatheter-Related InfectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPilot ProjectsIntravenousPhlebitisRandomised controlled trialVascular access devices

Identifiers

PMID30333063
PMCPMC6192347
OpenAlexW2895833455

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.