ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of peripheral intravenous line securement devices under clinically relevant loading and perspiratory conditions.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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 vascular access devices (PVADs) and their associated intravenous (IV) lines are widely used in clinical care. Securement devices are typically employed to prevent accidental dislodgement and complications such as occlusion and phlebitis. Despite the wide use of securement devices, there are no standardised methods for evaluating their actual ability to secure IV lines. This study assessed the securing ability of four commercially available IV line securement devices - Grip Lok, Javelo, micropore tape, and IV bracelet - under controlled laboratory conditions. First, all four devices were tested for resistance to axial pull-out forces using a uniaxial materials testing machine across ten participants. Participant comfort during testing was assessed via questionnaire. Grip-Lok and Javelo exhibited significantly greater axial pull-out strength than the other two devices (p-adj < 0.001), and were progressed to further testing, consisting of off-axis loading at 90°, 135°, and peel-off, and axial pull-out under simulated perspiration conditions. No significant differences were observed between Grip Lok and Javelo under loading in 90° and 135°. Javelo demonstrated superior performance in both peel-off and perspirant conditions (p-adj < 0.05). Javelo was rated the most comfortable by 60% of participants. The results highlight the need for incorporating realistic loading conditions and comfort metrics when evaluating the performance of infusion line securement aids. Furthermore, the results provide evidence that using a non-adhesive based device, particularly in patients with marked diaphoresis might provide more infusion line security, though further study is required.
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.