Observational studyPediatric research2024
Pediatric invasive device utility and harm: a multi-site point prevalence survey.
Observational study in Pediatric research, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Educational-Care Needs for Hospital-Home Transition of Children With Hematological Cancer.Nursing research and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsInvasive devices are widely used in healthcare settings; however, pediatric patients are especially vulnerable to invasive device-associated harm. This study aimed to explore invasive device utility, prevalence, harm, and clinical practice across three Australian pediatric tertiary hospitals.
methodsIn 2022-2023, a multi-center, observational, rolling-point-prevalence survey was conducted. Fifty-per-cent of inpatients were systemically sampled by random allocation. Patients with devices were then followed for up to 3-days for device-related complications/failures and management/removal characteristics.
resultsOf the 285 patients audited, 78.2% had an invasive device (n = 412 devices), with a median of 1 device-per-patient (interquartile range 1-2), with a maximum of 13 devices-per-patient. Over half of devices were vascular access devices (n = 223; 54.1%), followed by gastrointestinal devices (n = 112; 27.2%). The point-prevalence of all device complications on Day 0 was 10.7% (44/412 devices) and period-prevalence throughout the audit period was 27.7% (114/412 devices). The period-prevalence of device failure was 13.4% (55/412 devices).
conclusionsThe study highlighted a high prevalence of invasive devices among hospitalized patients. One-in-ten devices failed during the audit period. These findings underscore the need for vigilant monitoring and improved strategies to minimize complications and enhance the safety of invasive devices in pediatric hospital settings. IMPACT: A high prevalence of invasive devices among hospitalized patients was reported. Of the 285 patients audited, almost 80% had an invasive device (total 412 devices), with a median of 1 device-per-patient and a maximum of 13 devices-per-patient. The most common devices used in pediatric healthcare are vascular access devices (n = 223; 54.1%), however, 16% (n = 36) of these devices failed, and one-third had complications. The point prevalence of all device complications at day 0 was 10.7% (44 out of 412 devices), with a period prevalence of 27.7% (114 out of 412 devices) throughout the audit period.
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.