SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Comparison of clinically indicated replacement and routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. 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.
- Pediatric necrotizing soft tissue infection: unveiling a rare complication of routine procedures - peripheral venous catheter insertion.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Non-Adherence to Peripheral Venous Catheter Care Protocols Significantly Decreases Patient Safety and Impacts Costs: A Retrospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is unknown whether clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) increases the risks of PIVC-associated complications and infections compared to routine replacement of PIVCs. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the safety outcomes of routine replacement and clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs were included for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of phlebitis, and secondary outcomes included the risks of occlusion, local infection, infiltration, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and accidental removal of the PIVC. Results: A total of 9 RCTs involving 10 973 patients were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5,546 and 5,527 were assigned to the study group (clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs) and control group (routine replacement of PIVCs every 72-96 h), respectively. The incidence of phlebitis in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group [risk ratio (RR), 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.44, Conclusion: The clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs may increase the risks of PIVC-associated phlebitis, infiltration, and occlusion compared to the routine replacement of PIVCs, but did not increase the risk of PIVC-associated infections. Based on these findings, routine replacement of PIVCs every 72-96 h maybe a preferred option than clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs. Systematic review registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022302021].
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.