A systematic review: effectiveness of pediatric peripheral intravenous catheterization strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to identify interventions associated with peripheral intravenous catheterization first attempt success in pediatric inpatients and emergency department patients who require vascular access for therapeutic interventions. BACKGROUND: Unsuccessful peripheral intravenous catheterization puts children at risk for increased pain and treatment delays. Effective interventions to increase peripheral intravenous catheterization first attempt success are unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials according to the Cochrane Handbook for the Systematic Review of Interventions. DATA SOURCES: Through November and December 2014, we searched 10 databases including MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) without date limits. The references of articles were also reviewed. We included full text reports of randomized controlled trials testing intervention first attempt success rates vs. standard of care. REVIEW METHODS: According to inclusion and exclusion criteria set a priori, data were extracted using a standardized tool. We assessed for risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Due to unclear reporting narrative synthesis was used to report results. RESULTS: Four cluster randomized control trials and ten randomized control trials involving 4539 participants ranging from 15·6 days to 16 years of age met our inclusion criteria. We excluded the four cluster trials from meta-analysis due to unclear reporting. Interventions did not increase first attempt success rate compared with standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to support the use of ultrasound, infrared light or transillumination. Interventions to reduce children's pain did not decrease first attempt success. Research examining between-clinician proficiency and persistence differences is absent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".