ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Appropriate selection of vascular access devices in the hospitalized patient: a prospective observational pilot study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Portable Ultrasound System for Peripheral Intravenous Access: Performance and Safety in a Clinical Setting.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVascular access devices (VADs) play a critical role in clinical practice, facilitating the administration of medications, fluid therapy, and parenteral nutrition. Nevertheless, improper selection of VADs can result in various complications, escalate healthcare costs, and significantly impact patients' experience. This study seeks to evaluate the appropriateness of VAD selection in contemporary clinical practice.
methodsA prospective observational pilot study was conducted between September 1st and December 31st, 2023, in two medical wards at Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. Data on VAD type, insertion, maintenance, and complications were collected. The primary outcome was the appropriate selection of central VADs (CVADs) and peripheral VADs (PVADs) as recommended by the most recent international guidelines and consensus documents.
resultsA total of 322 VADs were inserted in the considered period, out of which 23 (7.1%) were CVADs and 299 (92.9%) were PVADs. Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC, n = 10; 43.5%) was the most represented CVAD, followed by ports (n = 6; 26%), Centrally Inserted Central Catheters (CICC, n = 4; 17.4%), and Femorally Inserted Central Catheters (FICC, n = 3; 13%). Short peripheral cannulas (SPC) were the most represented PVADs (n = 257; 86%), followed by long peripheral cannulas (LPC) (32; 10.7%), and midline (MC) (n = 10; 3.3%). CVADs were appropriate in 82.6% of cases, whereas PVADs' appropriateness fell to 43.1%. Overall, 47 VAD failures were observed: 6 (26.1%) CVADs and 41 (13.7%) PVADs.
conclusionThis study found a high prevalence of inappropriate VAD selection in hospitalised patients, especially among PVADs, although with no increased risk of complications. Further studies are needed to address effective strategies for improving the selection of VADs.
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.