↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
33 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


53 Dimensions

Readers on

293 Mendeley
Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011429.pub2
Pubmed ID

Peter J Carr, Niall S Higgins, Marie L Cooke, Gabor Mihala, Claire M Rickard


Most people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes. To compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018. We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management. We retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication. This systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 292 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 13%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 5%
Other 55 19%
Unknown 103 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 82 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 17%
Psychology 12 4%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 109 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2022.
All research outputs
of 23,785,843 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 333,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,785,843 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.