Locking solutions for prevention of central venous access device complications in the adult critical care population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the extent and quality of evidence for use of different types of locking fluids to prevent central venous access device complications in adult critical care patients. Specifically, rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection, colonization, and occlusion were considered. All types of devices were included in the review: central venous catheters, peripherally- inserted central catheters and hemodialysis catheters. METHODS: Eligibility criteria. Papers had to include adult (>18 years old) critical care patients, be experimental trials, conducted in North America and Europe, and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 onwards. Information sources. A search of Medline and EMBASE databases was performed. The search is current as of November 28th, 2022. Risk of bias. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tools were used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. RESULTS: Included studies. A total of 240 paper titles and abstracts underwent review, of these seven studies met the final criteria for quality appraisal. A total of three studies earned a low risk of bias quality appraisal. DISCUSSION: Limitations of evidence. Due to heterogeneity of types of locking fluids investigated and small number of studies identified, meta-analysis of results was not possible. Interpretation. Out of all fluids investigated, only citrate 46.7% was found to statistically reduce central venous access device complication rates. This systematic review has also identified a gap in the literature regarding studies of locking fluids that are adequately powered in this patient population. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Future research should include investigations and use of novel locking fluids with more effective properties against complications. It is imperative that future studies are adequately powered, randomized controlled trials in this patient population to facilitate optimal evidence-based care.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".