MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412775213 · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03635-3

Summary of best evidence for safe management of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters

2025· article· en· W4412775213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guanjie Chen, Chen Shen, Chenwei Pan, Xiaohui Gao, Xiaoqing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceSoutheast UniversityFudan UniversityJiangsu Commission of Health
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMEDLINESystematic reviewBest practiceEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicineGrading (engineering)ExcellenceIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are critical for maintaining hemodynamic stability in critically ill patients, traditionally administered via central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs carry risks of complications and insertion delays. Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) offer a rapid alternative but pose risks of extravasation and phlebitis. This study aimed to evaluate and summarize the evidence for the safe management of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters, providing reference for clinical practice. METHODS: This evidence summary utilized the standard evidence summary report of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which includes problem establishment, evidence retrieval, literature screening, quality evaluation of the literature, the summary and grading of evidence. The registration number is "ES20246694". Current literatures were systematically searched for the best evidence for safe management of vasopressors through PIVCs. BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, DynaMed, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane Library, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, Intravenous Nurses Society, Chinese Nursing Association, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, Web of Science, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, Sinomed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were searched from database establishment to 27 June 2025. Literature types included clinical practice guidelines, clinical decisions, expert consensuses, systematic reviews, and evidence summaries. RESULTS: Our systematic search retrieved 1,925 publications, and finally identified 12 articles that had high-quality results. The evidence synthesis comprised three clinical decisions, four guidelines, one expert consensus, and four systematic reviews. We summarized the 29 pieces of best evidence from these articles, covering five aspects: training and education, infusion site selection, vascular access placement, infusion regimen optimization, and complication management. Of these pieces of evidence, 23 were 'strong' and 6 were 'weak', 9 pieces of evidence were recommended in level one. CONCLUSION: The following 29 pieces of evidence for safe management of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters were finally recommended. However, due to the multinational origin of the evidence, feasibility, appropriateness, clinical significance, and effectiveness must be evaluated within institutional contexts prior to implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207