ArticleBMJ open2020
The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation and evaluation of short peripheral intravenous catheter flushing guidelines: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.BMC medicine · 2020Trial
- Article
- The I-DECIDEDJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2026Article
- Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in Hospitalized Surgical Patients: A US Real-World Data Analysis.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Adherence to peripheral venous catheters' guidelines by emergency nurses: A systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Management from a multidisciplinary perspective of phlebitis related to peripheral venous catheter insertion: An international Delphi study.Nursing open · 2024Article
- Evolution of Scientific Production on Phlebitis Secondary to Vascular Access: A 71-Year Bibliometric Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023Review
- Quality of care in peripheral venous catheterization: A scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
- Risk factors for peripheral venous catheter failure: A prospective cohort study of 5345 patients.The journal of vascular access · 2022Article
- What fuels suboptimal care of peripheral intravenous catheter-related infections in hospitals? A qualitative study of decision-making among Spanish nurses.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Article
- Peripheral intravenous catheters in the care of oncology and haematology patients.The Australian journal of cancer nursing · 2022Article
- UK Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) Framework: a commentary on the updated VHP 2020.Journal of infection prevention · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making. DESIGN AND
settingI-DECIDED is an eight-step tool derived from international vascular access guidelines into a structured mnemonic for device assessment and decision-making. The clinimetric evaluation process was conducted in three distinct phases.
methodsInitial face validity was confirmed with a vascular access working group. Next, content validity testing was conducted via online survey with vascular access experts and clinicians from Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada. Finally, inter-rater reliability was conducted between 34 pairs of assessors for a total of 68 peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) assessments. Assessments were timed to ensure feasibility, and the second rater was blinded to the first's findings. Content validity index (CVI), mean item-level CVI (I-CVI), internal consistency, mean proportion of agreement, observed and expected inter-rater agreements, and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappas (PABAK) were calculated. Ethics approvals were obtained from university and hospital ethics committees.
resultsThe I-DECIDED tool demonstrated strong content validity among international vascular access experts (n=7; mean I-CVI=0.91; mean proportion of agreement=0.91) and clinicians (n=11; mean I-CVI=0.93; mean proportion of agreement=0.94), and high inter-rater reliability in seven adult medical-surgical wards of three Australian hospitals. Overall, inter-rater reliability was 87.13%, with PABAK for each principle ranging from 0.5882 ('patient education') to 1.0000 ('document the decision'). Time to complete assessments averaged 2 min, and nurse-reported acceptability was high.
conclusionThis is the first comprehensive, evidence-based, valid and reliable PIVC assessment and decision tool. We recommend studies to evaluate the outcome of implementing this tool in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12617000067370.
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.