Trial reportTrials2018
Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a pilot randomised controlled trial.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascular access specialist teams versus standard practice for catheter insertion and prevention of failure: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of vein characteristics and operator experience on intravenous catheter insertion success in cats in an emergency room.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Peripheral intravenous catheter clinical care standard adherence in emergency departments: A qualitative study underpinned by the behaviour change wheel.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Infection risk of peripheral intravenous catheters: meta-synthesis of 18 prospective studies with 14,606 catheters.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- A Prospective Cohort Study of Technique and Technology Used to Improve First Time PIVC Insertion Success in Hospitalised Paediatric Patients.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Observational
- Article
- Placement, management and complications associated with peripheral intravenous catheter use in UK small animal practice.The Journal of small animal practice · 2025Article
- Complications related to short peripheral intravenous catheters in patients with acute stroke: a prospective, observational, single-cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and therapy administration: simulator learning.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2023Observational
- Short Peripheral Venous Catheters Contamination and the Dangers of Bloodstream Infection in Portugal: An Analytic Study.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Remotely supervised ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous cannulation training: A prospective cohort study examining success rates and patient experience.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2022Article
- Peripheral intravenous cannulation decision-making in emergency settings: a qualitative descriptive study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Impact of an Innovative Securement Dressing and Tourniquet in Peripheral Intravenous Catheter-Related Complications and Contamination: An Interventional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Observational
- Analysis of complications associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Prospective observational study.Revista CuidarteArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.