ArticlePloS one2025
Flushing peripheral intravenous catheters: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral intravascular catheters (PIVCs) are indispensable vascular access devices in healthcare, facilitating the administration of intravenous therapies. Despite their vital role, PIVCs are frequently associated with complications such as occlusion, infection, and thrombosis, which contribute to catheter failure. Flushing catheters is one of the most common practices during PIVC maintenance, as it cleans the internal catheter lumen, ensuring patency and reducing the risk of complications. However, inconsistencies in flushing practices such as flushing technique, volume to use, frequency, and methods highlight a lack of consensus in the literature and clinical guidelines.
methodsFollowing JBI scoping review methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature sources. Studies were included if they focused on PIVC flushing techniques, flushing methods (speed, volume, frequencies, interval), or their impact on catheter-related outcomes. Data were charted using the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence, Research recommendations) framework.
resultsOf the 4539 initial studies retrieved, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Key findings reveal significant variability in flushing practices, with no consensus on optimal technique (continuous, intermittent, or pulsatile), volume (commonly 5-10 mL), or frequency (ranging from every 6 hours to every 24 hours). Pulsatile flushing showed promise in laboratory studies for reducing bacterial colonization and maintaining catheter patency but lacked consistent clinical evidence. Fluid dynamics studies on the flushing process suggested potential endothelial injury from high flushing velocities and the need for standardized practices.
conclusionWhile some studies have investigated PIVC flushing, the existing research remains inconsistent, with a lack of clinical trials and mechanistic evidence on how flushing affects catheter patency, endothelial damage, and complication prevention.
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.