SynthesisBMJ open2026
Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) in the adult population: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesise evidence from systematic reviews on difficult intravenous access (DIVA) in adults, focusing on definitions, diagnostic criteria, risk factors and clinical interventions to guide clinical practice and health policy.
designUmbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
settingAny clinical setting involving adult patients requiring peripheral venous access (including hospital, emergency and outpatient care). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science in July 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2014 to 2025 that addressed DIVA in the adult population were included. Primary studies and protocols were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews tool. Data extraction followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for overviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews reporting guideline.
resultsSeven reviews (six systematic reviews and one meta-analysis) were included. Three analytical dimensions emerged: (1) the conceptual and operational definition of DIVA, identifying common elements such as ≥2 failed attempts, lack of visible or palpable veins and a documented history of difficult access; (2) risk factors and clinical assessment, highlighting obesity, chronic diseases, prior chemotherapy, venous invisibility or non-palpability and the limited validation of diagnostic tools and (3) interventions, including organisational strategies (escalation protocols, specialised teams), technological resources (ultrasound guidance) and clinical measures (pain management and technique optimisation).
conclusionsDIVA is a multifactorial challenge that requires a standardised definition to improve clinical identification. Effective management relies on a combination of specialised training, the use of ultrasound technology and the implementation of escalation protocols to ensure patient safety and efficiency. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251084947.
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.