ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2021
A new clinical approach to improve the appropriate use of peripherally inserted central catheters: a prospective study.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of an updated French national tool for reporting pharmacist interventions for all healthcare products.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters commonly used for administration of chemotherapy, prolonged antibiotic treatment, or parenteral nutrition. It is advisable to use the PICC with the fewest lumens and the smallest possible diameter to reduce major complications. A pharmaceutical analysis and validation of PICC requests was designed to improve efficiency and patient safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) by the clinical pharmacist in the PICC process.
methodsA prospective pilot study was conducted in a French university hospital. Four categories of PIs were defined according to the different stages of the PICC insertion process: before insertion to validate with the physician the relevance of the request and the choice of PICC model (PI applicant); during insertion (PI installer); during usage by nurses for analysis of drug incompatibilities (PI user); and at hospital discharge for reassessment of the device maintenance (PI reassessment). Each PI applicant was designated a potential harm from 1 to 4, with a cut-off of 2 representing harm for the patient.
resultsOver 6 months, 277 requests were analysed and 297 PIs were completed (109 applicants, 98 installers, 84 users, and 6 PIs for reassessment). The acceptance rate by the physicians was 93.6%. 52% of the PI applicants had a potential harm of 2 or more. 5% of PICC requests were refused by the pharmacist due to an inappropriate choice of device. A total of 207 (74.7%) of the requests analysed by the clinical pharmacist led to insertion.
conclusionsThe implementation of a clinical pharmacy activity applied to PICC requests analysis and validation leads to improved patient care by securing the PICC circuit. This analysis demonstrates the beneficial role of the clinical pharmacist in PIs associated with medical devices.
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.