Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41322982›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

Umbilical venous catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter malposition and tip migration in neonates: A mixed methods cost analysis.

Arun M Jones, Suzanna Mongan, Amanda Ullman, Deanne August, Elizabeth Sharpe, Angela A Alderman, Darcy Doellman, Caitlin Anders, Kacey Wiseman, Cheryl Gillette and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

12 authors.

Arun M JonesHealth Economics Group, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Suzanna MonganHealth Economics Group, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Amanda UllmanSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Deanne AugustSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Elizabeth SharpeCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Angela A AldermanNeonatal Intensive Care Nursery, Carilion Children's Hospital, VA, USA.
Darcy DoellmanB Braun Medical Inc. Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Caitlin AndersVascular Access Team, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kacey WisemanVascular Access Service, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Cheryl GillettePediatric Vascular Access Service, University of Rochester Medical Center, Golisano Children's Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Hansoo KimHealth Economics Group, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Joshua ByrnesHealth Economics Group, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hospitalized neonates require reliable vascular access for life-saving care. The costs associated with their clinical management, and which aspects of care these costs are attributable to, is not well-known. Objective: To estimate the economic burden of vascular access care in neonates in the United States and to break down the attribution of costs therein by establishing an economic model of standard care. Design and methods: A four step, mixed-methods study was used to determine and analyse an appropriate economic model for neonatal umbilical venous catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter insertion from the payer's perspective in the US. An initial model was developed based on a purposive literature search. Secondly, initial face validity of the model was assessed with input from North American clinical experts identified to have appropriate expertise ( Results: Feedback from the survey and focus group on model structure, resource usage and costings were incorporated to create decision-tree models for both umbilical venous catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter care. High variability between the opinions of clinicians was noted, which was incorporated into the sensitivity analyses. The umbilical venous catheter base-case expected cost was $390.24 per patient, with an average of 0.04 complications expected per-patient. The peripherally inserted central catheter model base-case expected cost was $1517.83 per patient, with an average of 0.1 complications per-patient. In the umbilical venous catheter model $82.73 of cost was attributable to malposition and $46.36 to migration. In the peripherally inserted central catheter model, $75.58 was attributable to malposition and $755.14 to migration. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the strongest driver of costs was catheter dwell time (umbilical venous catheter lower: $245.55, umbilical venous catheter upper: $578.77, peripherally inserted central catheter lower: $1263.40, peripherally inserted central catheter upper: $1771.74), followed by probability of migration (umbilical venous catheter lower: $343.91, umbilical venous catheter upper: $439.14, peripherally inserted central catheter lower: $1329.04, peripherally inserted central catheter upper: $1733.58) in both models. Conclusions: The migration and malposition of peripherally inserted central catheters and umbilical venous catheters has significant costs and consequences. These should be targeted for evidence-based and innovative solutions to improve neonatal vascular access care.

Indexed as

Costs and cost analysisEconomicHealth care costs, HospitalHealth care economics and organizationsInfantModelsNewborn / hospitalizationVascular access devices / adverse effects

Identifiers

PMID41322982
PMCPMC12664355

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.