Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38641574›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.

Kerrie Curtis, Karla Gough, Meinir Krishnasamy, Elena Tarasenko, Geoff Hill, Samantha Keogh

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kerrie CurtisDepartment of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Kerrie.Curtis@petermac.org.
Karla GoughDepartment of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Meinir KrishnasamyDepartment of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Elena TarasenkoAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Geoff HillRoyal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Samantha KeoghCentre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUAustin Health · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

methodsA systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

resultsFrom a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

conclusionSubstantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTerminology as TopicCatheterization, Central VenousCentral Venous CathetersDevice RemovalHumansMedical OncologyCatheters indwellingCentral venous access deviceCentral venous cathetersComplicationDevice removalPremature removalTerminology

Identifiers

PMID38641574
PMCPMC11027380
OpenAlexW4394951043

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.