SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Paediatric Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map of Global Research.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo systematically map the landscape of central venous access device research from 2014 to 2024, identifying critical gaps in evidence that may impact nursing practice and patient outcomes across the full device lifecycle from selection through to removal.
designThis review was conducted in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched with additional hand-searching of reference lists from included reviews.
methodsWe systematically reviewed literature published between 2014 and 2024, mapping 710 studies on central venous access device interventions and outcomes. Studies were categorised by design, population, setting, device characteristics, intervention types, and outcomes. Evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence framework.
resultsOf 710 included studies, 89 were systematic reviews and 621 primary studies, of which 41.1% (n = 292) were randomised controlled trials. Research was primarily conducted in high-income countries (n = 405, 65.2%) and focused on adults (n = 370, 59.6%) in hospital inpatient settings (n = 588, 94.7%). Catheter insertion and infection prevention dominated the evidence base, while device selection and removal procedures were less studied. Infection outcomes were extensively reported (bloodstream infection: n = 455, 13.6% of 3349 outcomes), while patient-reported outcomes (n = 218, 6.5%) and cost (n = 60, 1.8%) were underrepresented.
conclusionsThis review reveals that central venous access device research is predominantly focused on insertion and infection prevention while other key parts of nursing practice are under-supported. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Future nursing research should address these gaps to improve evidence-based care across diverse populations and healthcare contexts, particularly focusing on understudied device types, settings, and vulnerable populations. REPORTING
methodThis review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
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.