Trial reportCancer nursing
Routine Catheter Lock Solutions in Pediatric Cancer Care: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Heparin vs Saline.
Trial report in Cancer nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heparin versus normal saline for the care of peripheral intravenous catheters in children: A meta-analysis.Nursing open · 2024Pooled it
- Complications in Central Venous Access Devices in Paediatric Cancer Care: A Global Cross-Sectional Survey.European journal of haematology · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous access devices (CVADs) are integral to cancer care provision. Despite the high prevalence of CVAD complications in children with cancer, preventative strategies are understudied.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess study feasibility, occlusive events, thrombolytic use, adverse events, and direct costs of catheter lock solutions.
methodsA single-center, parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial was undertaken at a tertiary-referral pediatric hospital in Australia. Children 18 years or younger with an oncological or malignant hematological condition and a CVAD were eligible. Participants were 1:1 randomized to (1) normal or (2) heparinized (10-100 U/mL; CVAD-type dependent) saline lock solutions.
resultsOf 217 children assessed for eligibility, 61 were recruited and randomized to normal (n = 30; 3850 CVAD days) or heparinized (n = 31; 4036 CVAD days) saline. Eligibility (52%) and recruitment (54%) feasibility targets were not met. Protocol adherence was high (95% assessments), with no attrition. Parent/clinician satisfaction of interventions was high (median, 10/10 clinicians/parents). Complete CVAD occlusion occurred in heparin only (n = 2, 6.7% CVADs; incidence rate [IR], 0.49/1000 CVAD days [0.06-1.78]). Central venous access device partial occlusion was detected in 23.3% of CVADs in heparin (n = 7; IR, 2.73/1000 CVAD days [1.36-4.87]) and 13.8% of CVADs in normal saline (n = 4; IR, 2.59/1000 CVAD days [1.24-4.77]). Thrombolytic agents were used in 16.7% heparin (5 CVADs) and 3.5% normal saline (1 CVAD). Adverse events did not differ between groups.
conclusionMultisite randomized controlled trials examining CVAD locks are safe, but strategies and resources to increase recruitment and eligibility are required. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both routine CVAD lock solutions seem safe but may not prevent all forms of CVAD-associated harm.
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.