ArticleThe journal of vascular access2020
In-line filtration reduced phlebitis associated with peripheral venous cannulation: Focus on cost-effectiveness and patients' perspectives.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spallation and particles infusion into the extracorporeal circuit during CRRT: a preventable phenomenon.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Risk factors associated with the occurrence of the adverse event phlebitis in hospitalized adult patients.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a previous trial, in-line filtration significantly prevented postoperative phlebitis associated with short peripheral venous cannulation. This study aims to describe the cost-effectiveness of in-line filtration in reducing phlebitis and examine patients' perception of in-hospital vascular access management with and without in-line filtration.
methodsWe analysed costs associated with in-line filtration: these data were prospectively recorded during the previous trial. Furthermore, we performed a follow-up for all the 268 patients enrolled in this trial. Among these, 213 patients responded and completed 6 months after hospital discharge questionnaires evaluating the perception of and satisfaction with the management of their vascular access.
resultsIn-line filtration group required 95.60€ more than the no-filtration group (a mean of € 0.71/patient). In terms of satisfaction with the perioperative management of their short peripheral venous cannulation, 110 (82%) and 103 (76.9%) patients, respectively, for in-line filtration and control group, completed this survey. Within in-line filtration group, 97.3% of patients were satisfied/strongly satisfied; if compared with previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, 11% of them recognised in-line filtration as a relevant causative factor in determining their satisfaction. Among patients within the control group, 93.2% were satisfied/strongly satisfied, although up to 30% of them had experienced postoperative phlebitis. At the qualitative interview, they recognised no difference than previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, and mentioned postoperative phlebitis as a common event that 'normally occurs' during a hospital stay.
conclusionIn-line filtration is cost-effective in preventing postoperative phlebitis, and it seems to contribute to increasing patient satisfaction and reducing short peripheral venous cannulation-related discomfort.
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.