ReviewJournal of hospital medicine2026
Things We Do for No Reason™: Routinely maintaining intravenous access in hospitalized patients.
Review in Journal of hospital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macroscopic characteristics and handling aspects of peripheral and central venous catheters in patients treated in a German tertiary care hospital.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2026Article
- Things We Do for No Reason™: Routinely maintaining intravenous access in hospitalized patients.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Review
- Top unanswered questions in antimicrobial management of necrotizing soft tissue infections.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used in hospitalized patients and are often maintained even after the need for intravenous therapy has resolved. This article challenges the routine practice of maintaining idle PIVCs in clinically stable patients. While PIVCs offer convenient access for emergent treatment, they are associated with risks-including local infections, phlebitis, and vascular damage-as well as significant patient discomfort. Notably, although PIVCs carry a lower individual risk of bloodstream infection compared with central venous catheters, their widespread use makes them responsible for up to one-third of Staphylococcus aureus catheter-related bacteremia. Furthermore, idle PIVCs often fail before use, and intraosseous access provides an effective alternative in true emergencies. As many intravenous medications can be safely and effectively administered orally, the continued use of PIVCs in stable patients may offer little benefit while introducing avoidable harms and costs. Clinicians should regularly reassess the need for intravenous access and remove idle PIVCs when appropriate to promote patient safety and comfort.
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.