ArticleBMC nursing2025
Comparison of peripheral intravenous catheterization applied to different anatomical sites in terms of pain, phlebitis and infiltration.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of the effects of mini-midline catheter placement in the forearm versus upper arm of neurosurgical patients based on propensity score matching.BMC neurology · 2026Observational
- Nonpharmacological Interventions for Pain Relief During Peripheral Venous Cannulation: Implications for Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study was conducted to compare peripheral intravenous catheterization (PIVC) at different anatomical sites in terms of pain, phlebitis and infiltration. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was a comparative-descriptive study. The population of the study consisted of all adult patients being treated and receiving intravenous drug therapy in a state hospital. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 154 patients who met the inclusion criteria for the study and were selected by non-probability sampling method. The "Patient Information Form" created by the researchers, "Phlebitis and Infiltration Scale" and "Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)" were used to collect data.
resultsIn the study, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the degree of phlebitis, time of phlebitis and degree of infiltration between the PIVC applied upper hand, forearm and antecubital regions (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference between the regions in terms of pain (p < 0.05). It was determined that the severity of pain upper hand was significantly higher than the other groups.
conclusionPIVC's applied at different anatomical sites were similar in terms of the risk of phlebitis and infiltration, but pain intensity was much higher upper hand. It has been determined that various factors related to the patient, nurse and other variables affecting the level of phlebitis, infiltration and pain are effective.
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.