Clinical performance of a new blood control peripheral intravenous catheter: A prospective, randomized, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The performance of a new safety peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) that contains a blood control feature in the hub (blood control) was compared against the current hospital standard without blood control (standard). METHODS: In this prospective, non-blinded trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either device. Insertions were performed and rated by emergency room nurses. Primary endpoints included clinical acceptability, incidence of blood leakage, and risk of blood exposure. Secondary endpoints were digital compression, insertion success, and usability. RESULTS: 15 clinicians performed 152 PIVC insertions (73 blood control, 79 standard). Clinical acceptability of the blood control device (100%) was non-inferior to the standard (98.7%) (p < 0.0001). The blood control device had a lower incidence of blood leakage (14.1% vs 68.4%), was superior in eliminating the risk of blood exposure (93.9% vs 19.1%) and the need for digital compression (95.3% vs 19.1%), while maintaining non-inferior insertion success rates (95.9% vs 93.7%) and usability ratings (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: In comparison with the hospital-standard, the new safety PIVC with integrated blood control valve had similar clinical acceptability ratings yet demonstrated superior advantages to both clinicians and patients to decrease blood leakage and the clinician's risk of blood exposure, during the insertion process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".