SynthesisBMJ open2024
Appraising the quality standard of clinical practice guidelines related to central venous catheter-related thrombosis prevention: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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.
- Predictive model for CRT risk in cancer patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Knot formation of a pulmonary artery catheter associated with right internal jugular vein thrombosis: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the quality and analyse the content of clinical practice guidelines regarding central venous catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) to provide evidence for formulating an evidence-based practice protocol and a risk assessment scale to prevent it.
designScoring and analysis of the guidelines using the AGREE II and AGREE REX scales. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature, and the relevant websites of the guideline, were searched from 1 January 2017 to 26 March 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Guidelines covering CRT treatment, prevention, or management were included from 1 January 2017 to 26 March 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three independent reviewers systematically trained in using the AGREE II and AGREE REX scales were selected to evaluate these guidelines.
resultsNine guidelines were included, and the quality grade results showed that three were at A-level and six were at B-level. The included guidelines mainly recommended the prevention measure of central venous CRT from three aspects: risk screening, prevention strategies, and knowledge training, with a total of 22 suggestions being recommended.
conclusionThe overall quality of the guidelines is high, but there are few preventive measures for central venous CRT involved in the guidelines. All preventive measures have yet to be systematically integrated and evaluated, and no risk assessment scale dedicated to this field has been recommended. Therefore, developing an evidence-based practice protocol and a risk assessment scale to prevent it is urgent.
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.