Should the CDC’s recommendations for promptly removing unnecessary centrally inserted central catheters be enhanced? Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation to fully comply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In an effort to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection's incidence rates in an intensive care unit, several evidence-based procedures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for centrally inserted central catheters were implemented. A failure to fully comply with the recommendation for prompt removal of the centrally inserted central catheters was attributed, mainly to the difficulties and inadequacies raised from establishing peripheral venous access. METHODS: The ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation method as a supplementary intervention to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations was incorporated and examined during the subsequent year. RESULTS: A significant reduction on catheter-related bloodstream infection incidence rates out of the expected range was found. Centrally inserted central catheters utilization ratios were reduced by 10.7% (p < 0.05; 58%-47%) and the catheter-related bloodstream infection incidence rate was reduced by 11.7 per thousand device-days (15.9-4.16/1000 centrally inserted central catheters days (2015-2016 group, respectively)). CONCLUSION: The reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infection was higher than that described in the published literature. This probably shows that the combination of the five evidence-based procedures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention together with that of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation method can increase the compliance with the Category IA recommendation for removal or avoidance of unnecessary placement of centrally inserted central catheters and decrease the catheter-related bloodstream infections in a more effective way, by affecting the patients' centrally inserted central catheter exposure.
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 | 0.023 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".