ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Efficacy and safety of quick penetrating solution heparin, quick penetrating solution diclofenac, and heparin gel in the prevention of infusion-associated superficial thrombophlebitis: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical trials of topical agents: Easy application but difficult design.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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
Background: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of quick penetrating solution (QPS) heparin, QPS diclofenac, and heparin gel in the prevention of superficial thrombophlebitis (ST). Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee and registration to Clinical Trial Registry of India. Patients of 18-60 years age, Results: Out of 219 included patients, development of no ST in the study groups at 72 h of treatment were heparin gel (11%), QPS heparin (9.6%), and QPS diclofenac (2.7%). The mean time (hours) to develop any grade ST in the study arms was heparin gel (36.2 [11.9]), QPS heparin (40.0 [13.4]), and QPS diclofenac (37.0 [13.2]). The Kaplan-Meier analysis did not reveal significant differences for the prevention of any grade ST or severe ST in three treatment arms. The average cost-effectiveness ratio for preventing thrombophlebitis was 14.2 in heparin gel-, 13.2 in QPS heparin-, and 95.6 in QPS diclofenac-treated patients. Conclusion: Based on efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, heparin gel or QPS heparin can be used to prevent ST due to intravenous cannulation in surgical patients. QPS diclofenac is not a cost-effective option to prevent ST.
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.