Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.
Mari Takashima, Areum Hyun, Tricia Kleidon and 12 others
PMID 40847577WHAT IT FOUND
Central venous access device research over the past decade is concentrated on insertion and infection prevention, with little evidence on removal, pain, satisfaction, costs, and education tested by strong trials.
Nurses should treat device care guidance as uneven rather than complete.
Key findings
01The map included 710 studies, and removal-stage interventions were studied in only seven.
02Patient-centred and economic outcomes were underrepresented, with pain reported in 160 outcomes and economic outcomes in 60.
03The review did not synthesise intervention effects, so it cannot tell nurses which CVAD practice is effective.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The map did not formally appraise the methodological quality of individual studies, so study design labels do not show whether each study was well conducted. It did not combine results to show which CVAD interventions work, so it cannot support a clinical recommendation. Intervention and outcome categories were assigned by reviewers, which can introduce classification bias. Only published studies were searched, so ongoing or unpublished work may be missing. 38.0% of primary interventional studies did not specify the CVAD type, so findings are hard to apply to a particular device. Most evidence came from high-income countries and hospital inpatient settings, especially critical care and oncology, so it may not fit outpatient, community, paediatric, neonatal, or low-resource care.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that any CVAD intervention works. The review mapped study counts and gaps, did not appraise individual study quality, and did not synthesise intervention effects.