↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Central venous catheter (CVC) removal for patients of all ages with candidaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

1 Facebook page


33 Dimensions

Readers on

321 Mendeley
Central venous catheter (CVC) removal for patients of all ages with candidaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011195.pub2
Pubmed ID

Susanne Janum, Arash Afshari


Candida bloodstream infections most often affect those already suffering serious, potentially life-threatening conditions and often cause significant morbidity and mortality. Most affected persons have a central venous catheter (CVC) in place. The best CVC management in these cases has been widely debated in recent years, while the incidence of candidaemia has markedly increased. The main purpose of this review is to examine the impact of removing versus retaining a CVC on mortality in adults and children with candidaemia who have a CVC in place. We searched the following databases from inception to 3 December 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CAB), Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched for missed, unreported and ongoing trials in trial registries and in reference lists of excluded articles. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving adults and children with candidaemia and in which participants were randomized for removal of a CVC (the intervention under study), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language.However, two major factors make the conduct of RCTs in this population a difficult task: the large sample size required to document the impact of catheter removal in terms of overall mortality; and lack of economic interest from the industry in conducting such a trial. Our primary outcome measure was mortality. Several secondary outcome measures such as required time for clearance of blood cultures for Candida species, frequency of persistent candidaemia, complications, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the hospital were planned, as were various subgroup and sensitivity analyses, according to our protocol. We assessed papers and abstracts for eligibility and resolved disagreements by discussion. However, we were not able to include any RCTs or quasi-RCTS in this review and, as a result, have carried out no meta-analyses. However, we have chosen to provide a brief overview of excluded observational studies. We found no RCT and thus no available data for evaluation of the primary outcome (mortality) nor secondary outcomes or adverse effects. Therefore, we conducted no statistical analysis.A total of 73 observational studies reported on various clinically relevant outcomes following catheter removal or catheter retention. Most of these excluded, observational studies reported a beneficial effect of catheter removal in patients with candidaemia. None of the observational studies reported results in favour of retaining a catheter. However, the observational studies were very heterogeneous with regards to population, pathogens and interventions. Furthermore, they suffered from confounding by indication and an overall high risk of bias. As a consequence, we are not able to provide recommendations or to draw firm conclusions because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the results of these observational studies (very low quality of evidence, GRADE - Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group). Despite indications from observational studies in favour of early catheter removal, we found no eligible RCTs or quasi-RCTs to support these practices and therefore could draw no firm conclusions. At this stage, RCTs have provided no evidence to support the benefit of early or late catheter removal for survival or other important outcomes among patients with candidaemia; no evidence with regards to assessment of harm or benefit with prompt central venous catheter removal and subsequent re-insertion of new catheters to continue treatment; and no evidence on optimal timing of insertion of a new central venous catheter.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 318 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 15%
Student > Bachelor 38 12%
Researcher 28 9%
Student > Postgraduate 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 61 19%
Unknown 96 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 30 9%
Unknown 104 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,355,370 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 266,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.