ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2026
Guides, algorithms and other support tools to improve neonatal and pediatric venous access care: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveDespite the ubiquitous need of venous access in children, care is often highly variable, lacking standardization. Our objective was to review current venous access guides, algorithms, and other tools available for clinical implementation; map out their focus (device type, population); and identify quality gaps.
methodsA scoping review with a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and other databases was completed on January 24, 2025. All study designs describing the development of venous access guides/algorithms/tools for patients aged <18 years in the emergency department or inpatient units published after 2013 in English were included. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the results. Quality of studies was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.
resultsOf the 105 studies included, 18% (n = 19) involved peripheral access, 66% (n = 69) involved central access, and 16% (n = 17) involved both. Neonates were the population of focus in half the publications (n = 52), and reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was the primary aim of 56% (n = 59) of publications. Device selection and removal were two components of care with the lowest representation, particularly for peripheral access. Based on AGREE II scoring, 50% (n = 53) of identified guides/algorithms/tools were recommended for use. The lowest scoring quality domains were rigor of development and applicability, with 25% (n = 26) and 28% (n = 29) of studies, respectively, scoring in the lowest quintile.
conclusionsMost venous access guides/algorithms/tools focus on CLABSI reduction and neonates, leaving gaps in guidance for other components of the care process and other populations.
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.