ArticleBioMed research international2020
An
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Challenges of Vascular Implants: Regulatory Strategies and Biological Responses.Small science · 2025Review
- Racial and ethnical discrepancy in hypoxemia detection in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.JTCVS open · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of our study was to evaluate the damaging impact of characteristics of the central venous catheters (CVCs) on red blood cells.
methodsCVCs from three different manufacturers were analyzed, including the presence of coating, tunnel geometry, length, lumen diameter, and number of lumens with two respective flow rates (33 mL/min and 500 mL/min). Blood cell damage was defined by analyzing microparticle (MP) and hematologic analysis. MPs were isolated by ultracentrifugation of erythrocyte concentrate and analyzed on a flow cytometer.
resultsCharacteristics of catheters were not associated with blood cell damage at a low flow rate but showed an effect with a high flow rate. CVCs with a polyhexanide methacrylate coating have caused statistically less blood cell damage than noncoated CVCs. The length of lumens, diameter, and geometry of the tunnel showed no differences in blood cell damage. Meanwhile, the number of lumens was predicted to have a greater effect on the erythrocyte damage, which was revealed with the formation of MPs and hematological parameters. CVCs with five lumens caused significantly less damage to the blood cells than CVCs with a single lumen. Moreover, a high flow rate of 500 mL/min caused less damage to the blood cells than a low rate of 33 mL/min.
conclusionProperties of CVCs are an important factor for quality patient care, especially when transfusing blood with high flow rates, as we want to provide a patient with high-quality blood with as few damaged cells as possible.
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.