ArticleNursing open2020
Are current clinical guidelines on the use of Peripheral Intravenous Cannula for blood draws supported by evidence? An organizational case study.
Article in Nursing open, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the Use of Pre-existing Peripheral Intravenous Cannula as an Alternative to Venipuncture for Blood Sampling Being Implemented?Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022Article
- Are current clinical guidelines on the use of Peripheral Intravenous Cannula for blood draws supported by evidence? An organizational case study.Nursing open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To examine the quality of evidence used to inform health policies. Policies on peripheral intravenous cannulas were used as exemplars. Design: An organizational case study design was used, using the STROBE reporting guidelines. Methods: Policy guidelines were sourced between June and September 2018 from health departments in Australia. Seven documents were compared regarding intravenous cannula dwell times and blood collection use. Evidence used in the documents was critiqued using assessment guideline from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Results: Large variations exist between policies regarding blood sampling and dwell time. Evidence used a variety of sources. Few references received an A evidence rating and policies differed in their interpretation of evidence.
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.