MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321607781 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2418250/v1

Clinical effects of continuity of nursing care for peripherally inserted central catheters among discharged cancer patients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2023· review· en· W4321607781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
jindan ye, yawei jin, xiujuan wang, Tao‐Hsin Tung

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPeripherally inserted central catheterMeta-analysisSystematic reviewConfidence intervalMEDLINECochrane LibraryHazard ratioNursing careAccidentalCatheterPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The duration of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) retention can be shortened, and the likelihood of accidental extubation can increase if timely PICC maintenance is not performed after discharge. Furthermore, complications such as PICC blockage, phlebitis, and infection can occur without timely PICC maintenance after discharge. Therefore, providing PICC-catheterized individuals with continuous care after oncologic treatment is crucial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether continuous care for patients with centrally located catheters can prolong catheter retention, enhance patients’ quality of life, and encourage healthy lifestyle practices. Methods: The PRISMA criteria areguidelines for systematic reviews of relevant peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a continuum of care among patients with cancer. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for all relevant studies in English and Chinese until May 31, 2022. Two authors screened the included studies, evaluated eligible studies, and collected relevant data. They resolved any discordant opinions by asking for a senior editor's opinion. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was used for quality assessment, and the meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. A random-effects model was used when heterogeneitywas >50%. The estimates were expressed using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Results: This study included 21 papers (1420 in total were evaluated) in the systematic review. The PICC dwell time was recorded in 10 studies, three focused on quality of life, and six investigated healthy habits. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed for the length of stay (mean difference (MD): 3.43; 95% CI [1.82, 5.04]) and health-promoting lifestyle profile (MD: 24.49; 95% CI [14.92, 34.05]) to reduce heterogeneity. However, these analyses had little impact on total heterogeneity. Conclusions: This study observed that continuous care increased patients' quality of life, altered their manner of life, and extended PICC dwell time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.021
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→