SynthesisInternational wound journal2026
Effectiveness and Safety of Different Dressing and Securement Methods for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Different Dressing and Securement Methods for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- Fabrication of a five-layer wound dressing containing chitosan-LL37 peptide for the treatment of EB wounds and deep exudate patients.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 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
Abstract
Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used in hospital settings but are associated with high failure rates and patient safety risks. Various dressing and securement methods have been implemented to mitigate these complications. This systematic review aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of different dressing and securement methods for PIVCs in hospitalised adult and paediatric patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1959 and 2024 were identified through searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, Ovid EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Outcomes included PIVC failure, dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, extravasation, phlebitis, and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analysed using risk ratios where meta-analysis was feasible. Dwell time was reported descriptively as mean or median values. Fifteen RCTs involving 5542 participants evaluated eight PIVC dressing and securement methods. In adult populations, tissue adhesive significantly reduced PIVC failure compared with transparent polyurethane dressing (risk ratio [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.95), as well as dislodgement (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.84) and occlusion (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.94). Transparent polyurethane dressing was associated with lower dislodgement rates compared with gauze in adults. Other comparisons showed no statistically significant differences or were informed by single studies only, limiting the strength of conclusions. Evidence in paediatric populations was sparse and predominantly derived from individual trials. Tissue adhesive appears effective in reducing PIVC failure and mechanical complications in adults. Its effectiveness in pediatric patients remains uncertain, highlighting the need for further adequately powered trials.
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.