Observational studyPloS one2024
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department-Convenience or necessity?
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Is "Just-in-Case" catheterisation inappropriate or system-driven? A human factors perspective - Authors' reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Association between peripheral venous catheter failure and care complexity factors in emergency department: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral Intravenous Cannulas (PIVCs) are frequently utilised in the Emergency Department (ED) for delivery of medication and phlebotomy. They are associated with complications and have an associated cost to departmental resources. A growing body of international research suggests many of the PIVCs inserted in the ED are unnecessary.
methodsThe objective of this study was to determine the rates of PIVC insertion and use. This was a prospective observational study conducted in one UK ED and one Italian ED. Adult ED patients with non-immediate triage categories were included over a period of three weeks in the UK ED in August 2016 and two weeks in the Italian ED in March and August 2017. Episodes of PIVC insertion and data on PIVC utilisation in adults were recorded. PIVC use was classified as necessary, unnecessary or unused. The proportion of unnecessary and unused PIVCs was calculated. PIVCs were defined as unnecessary if they were either used for phlebotomy only, or solely for IV fluids in patients that could have potentially been hydrated orally (determined against a priori defined criteria). PIVC classified as unused were not used for any purpose.
resultsA total of 1,618 patients were included amongst which 977 PIVCs were inserted. Of the 977 PIVCs, 413 (42%) were necessary, 536 (55%) were unnecessary, and 28 (3%) were unused. Of the unnecessary PIVCs, 473 (48%) were used solely for phlebotomy and 63 (6%) were used for IV fluids in patients that could drink.
conclusionsMore than half of PIVCs placed in the ED were unnecessary in this study. This suggests that clinical decision making about the benefits and risks of PIVC insertion is not being performed on an individual basis.
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.