SynthesisPloS one2023
Locking solutions for prevention of central venous access device complications in the adult critical care population: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation and Modeling Thrombotic Occlusion in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025Article
- Machine learning for predicting device-associated infection and 30-day survival outcomes after invasive device procedure in intensive care unit patients.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this systematic review is to determine the extent and quality of evidence for use of different types of locking fluids to prevent central venous access device complications in adult critical care patients. Specifically, rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection, colonization, and occlusion were considered. All types of devices were included in the review: central venous catheters, peripherally- inserted central catheters and hemodialysis catheters.
methodsEligibility criteria. Papers had to include adult (>18 years old) critical care patients, be experimental trials, conducted in North America and Europe, and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 onwards. Information sources. A search of Medline and EMBASE databases was performed. The search is current as of November 28th, 2022. Risk of bias. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tools were used to assess the risk of bias in included studies.
resultsIncluded studies. A total of 240 paper titles and abstracts underwent review, of these seven studies met the final criteria for quality appraisal. A total of three studies earned a low risk of bias quality appraisal. DISCUSSION: Limitations of evidence. Due to heterogeneity of types of locking fluids investigated and small number of studies identified, meta-analysis of results was not possible. Interpretation. Out of all fluids investigated, only citrate 46.7% was found to statistically reduce central venous access device complication rates. This systematic review has also identified a gap in the literature regarding studies of locking fluids that are adequately powered in this patient population. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Future research should include investigations and use of novel locking fluids with more effective properties against complications. It is imperative that future studies are adequately powered, randomized controlled trials in this patient population to facilitate optimal evidence-based care.
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.