Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36038953›Full record

SynthesisEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2022

Review article: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in adult patients with difficult intravenous access: A systematic review of assessment instruments, clinical practice guidelines and escalation pathways.

Rebecca S Paterson, Jessica A Schults, Eugene Slaughter, Marie Cooke, Amanda Ullman, Tricia M Kleidon, Gerben Keijzers, Nicole Marsh, Claire M Rickard

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Newly Developed Needle in Emergency Room: A Single-Center Observational Study.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rebecca S PatersonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1557-9356
Jessica A SchultsSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5406-9519
Eugene SlaughterSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Marie CookeAlliance of Vascular Access Teaching and Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Amanda UllmanSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8860-5319
Tricia M KleidonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8369-3970
Gerben KeijzersAlliance of Vascular Access Teaching and Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1100-4552
Nicole MarshSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5779-1304
Claire M RickardSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6341-7415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present study aimed to critically appraise the quality of (i) assessment instruments and (ii) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or escalation pathways for identifying and managing patients with DIVA. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and EBSCO CINAHL databases were searched on 22 March 2021. Studies describing a DIVA assessment measure, CPG or escalation pathway for PIVC insertion in adults (≥18 years of age) were included. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form including study design, type of resource and reported clinical outcomes. Quality of DIVA assessment instruments were reviewed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Methodological quality of CPGs and escalation pathways was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREE-II) instrument. Overall, 24 DIVA resources comprising 16 DIVA assessment instruments and nine CPGs or escalation pathways (including one combined assessment instrument and escalation pathway) were identified. Instruments commonly focused on vein visibility and palpability as indicators of DIVA. CPGs and escalation pathways unanimously recommended use of vessel visualisation technology for patients with or suspected of DIVA. Methodological quality of the resources was mixed. Consensus and standardisation of resources to identify DIVA and recommendations for managing patients with DIVA is limited. Adopting consistent, evidence-based CPGs, escalation pathways or DIVA assessment instruments may significantly improve clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralAdministration, IntravenousAdultCathetersChecklistEvidence-Based PracticeHumansadultsclinical decision-makinginpatientsperipheral catheterization

Identifiers

PMID36038953
PMCPMC9804581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.