SynthesisJournal of paediatrics and child health2026
Paediatric Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map of Global Research.
Synthesis in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextCentral venous access devices (CVADs) are essential in paediatric care but pose significant risks. Synthesising existing evidence is needed to guide safe, effective, and equitable practice amid evolving interventions and complex management needs.
objectiveTo develop an evidence and gap map (EGM) to identify, categorise, and visualise paediatric evidence on interventions aimed at improving CVAD outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Following Campbell Collaboration guidance, systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and CENTRAL (date limits: 2014 to 30 June 2024). STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included patients (0-18 years) evaluating an intervention to improve CVAD outcomes, including randomised and non-randomised trials, implementation studies, and systematic reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on CVAD type, intervention, setting, outcomes, and study design. Data were descriptively analysed and visualised in Tableau.
resultsOf 952 studies in the broader EGM, 151 were paediatric-specific. Most were conducted in high-income countries (72%) and high-acuity settings, including critical care (41.9%) and oncology (38.5%). CVAD type was unspecified in 80.1% of studies. Systematic reviews (22.5%) and randomised controlled trials (28.5%) were available, though 40.4% of studies were before-and-after studies without controls. Common interventions addressed infection prevention, insertion technologies, and flushing. Clinical outcomes, particularly bloodstream infection (27.8%), dominated reporting, while patient-reported, economic, and device removal outcomes were rarely reported (< 2%). LIMITATIONS: Only studies from the last 10 years and English-language databases were included. No formal quality appraisal was conducted.
conclusionsSignificant evidence gaps exist. Future research should prioritise rigorous, paediatric-specific studies across diverse settings and outcome domains.
trial registrationOpen Science Framework (OSF) q6gcr: https://osf.io/q6gcr/overview.
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.