Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40421227›Full record

ReviewMedicine international

Venous access devices (Review).

Mohammad Abdulelah, Omar Haider, Hussein Abdulelah, Kevin T Jamouss, Thomas L Higgins

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mohammad AbdulelahDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate, Springfield, MA 01199, USA.
Omar HaiderDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate, Springfield, MA 01199, USA.
Hussein AbdulelahDepartment of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Kevin T JamoussDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate, Springfield, MA 01199, USA.
Thomas L HigginsDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate, Springfield, MA 01199, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venous access devices can be categorized based on the termination site of the tip of the catheter into central and peripheral access devices. Selecting the type of venous access device depends on various factors, including the condition of the patient, the anticipated duration of therapy, the use of vesicant or hyperosmolar therapies and the potential risk of complications. Peripheral intravenous catheters provide adequate venous access in the majority of hospitalized patients; however, their use is associated with high failure rates. Non-tunneled central venous access catheters are typically used in critically ill patients and are ideally suited for short-term use, while tunneled central catheters are utilized in those who require long-term intravenous therapy due to their extended dwell times. Each of these devices has unique characteristics requiring an in-depth understanding of the indications and current evidence-based recommendations to optimize their use. The present narrative review aimed to describe the different types of venous access devices and recommendations for their use based on current evidence-based recommendations. A narrative review of the literature was performed based on searches of the PubMed and Google Scholar database from 1990 through November 1, 2024. The type of device used, the insertion site, patient characteristics and clinical needs, and the risk of complications are factors that a provider needs to consider when ordering the placement of a venous access device are discussed. The present review also discusses the prevention of negative adverse events, such as bloodstream infections and thrombosis, associated with specific devices. In addition, current evidence-based recommendations for device selection and indications for use are described. The present narrative review provides a detailed examination of venous access devices that are essential in the care and treatment of patients. Since venous access is associated with inherent risks, device selection and meticulous post-insertion care are paramount in ensuring patient safety and successful therapy.

Indexed as

non-tunneled central venous access cathetersperipheral intravenous catheterstunneled central venous access cathetersvenous access devices

Identifiers

PMID40421227
PMCPMC12105099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.