Background Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), but the prevalence associated with each is not clear. Objective To compare the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs with a meta‐analysis. Methods The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched. All studies comparing the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. A fixed effects model was used to generate estimates of CRBSI risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs. Publication bias was evaluated, and meta‐analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3. Results A total of 167 studies were identified. Ten studies were collected, involving 33,322 patients. The prevalence of CRBSI with MCs and PICCs was 0.58% (40/6,900) and 0.48% (127/26,422), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between MCs and PICCs (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50–1.17, p = .22). While the result showed that the prevalence of CRBSI with MCs was lower than that with PICCs (RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33–0.92, p = .02) after poor‐quality studies were removed. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are fair in overall studies and non‐poor‐quality studies. All studies have no significant publication bias. Conclusions This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs and provides evidence for the selection of appropriate vascular access devices for intravenous infusion therapy in nursing. The prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between them.
Objective. To study the association between sleep duration and the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to provide a theoretical basis for the prevention of T2DM through a meta-analysis. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SINOMED were searched from their inception until May 2020. All cohort studies on the relationship between sleep duration and T2DM in adults were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Metaregression and publication bias were evaluated, and sensitivity and meta-analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3. Results. A total of 17 studies were collected, involving 737002 adults. The incidence of T2DM was 4.73% in short sleep duration (SSD) ( t ≤ 6 h ), 4.39% in normal sleep duration (NSD) ( 6 h < t < 9 h ), and 4.99% in long sleep duration (LSD) ( t ≥ 9 h ). The meta-analysis demonstrated that SSD increased the risk of T2DM compared with NSD ( RR = 1.22 , 95% CI: 1.15-1.29, P < 0.001 ), LSD increased the risk of T2DM compared with NSD ( RR = 1.26 , 95% CI: 1.15-1.39, P < 0.001 ), and the risk of T2DM has no significant difference between SSD and LSD ( RR = 0.97 , 95% CI: 0.89-1.05, P = 0.41 ). The sensitivity of each study was robust and the publication bias was weak. Conclusion. SSD or LSD can increase the risk of T2DM.
Background: Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial.Objective: To compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods:The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched from inception to January 2020. All studies comparing the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Any different opinion was resolved through third-party consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of VTE risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. Results:A total of 86 studies were identified. Twelve studies were recruited, involving 40,871 patients. The prevalence of VTE with MCs and PICCs was 3.97% (310/7806) and 2.29% (758/33065), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.53, 95% CI:1.33-1.76, p < .00001). Subgroup analyses by age showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs in the adult group (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.38-2.22, p < .00001), and higher than that with PICCs in the other subgroups (RR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.19-1.69, p = .0001). Subgroup analyses by nation showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.30-1.73, p < .00001) in US subgroup and higher than that with PICCs (RR=2.87, 95% CI: 1.24-6.65, p = .01) in the other nations. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are robust and all studies have no significant publication bias.
Aims To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta‐analysis. Design This was a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Data Sources Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020. Review Methods All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta‐analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3. Results A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta‐analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias. Conclusion This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.