↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 11,736)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1517 tweeters
facebook
25 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007798.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Webster, Sonya Osborne, Claire M Rickard, Karen New

Abstract

US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015). Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. CRBSI was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,517 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 22%
Student > Master 30 19%
Other 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 25 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 830. 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 12 May 2021.
All research outputs
#11,469
of 17,700,666 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 11,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140
of 245,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,700,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 245,898 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.