MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416099275 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1704530

Safety of peripheral intravenous administration of hypertonic saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4416099275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sih‐Shiang Huang, Chih‐Wei Sung, Chien‐Tai Huang, Mu‐Yang Hsieh, Jen‐Chung Ko, Wang‐Huei Sheng, Edward Pei‐Chuan Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)PeripheralTonicityAction (physics)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypertonic saline solution is critical for managing symptomatic hyponatremia and increased intracranial pressure (IICP). Though administered via central venous catheters (CVCs) traditionally, peripheral administration is a viable alternative, reducing delays and CVC-associated risks. This review evaluates the safety of peripheral hypertonic saline, focusing on infusion-related adverse events. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library (up to December 2024) identified studies on peripheral hypertonic saline in adults. Studies reporting phlebitis, infiltration, extravasation, and thrombosis were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tool. The review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024612330). Results: Thirteen studies involving 2,354 patients were included, comprising one randomized controlled trial and 12 cohort studies. Quality assessment showed a low risk of bias across all included studies. The pooled incidence of phlebitis was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.2%-4.1%), while infiltration and extravasation occurred at a rate of 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1%-3.9%). Thrombosis was rare, with an incidence of 0.8% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.7%). Most complications were mild and resolved conservatively. Conclusion: Peripheral hypertonic saline is a safe alternative to CVC placement, particularly in urgent situations where rapid intervention is required. Low complication rates support its broader use in clinical practice, enabling timely treatment while minimizing the risks associated with central access. These findings support consideration for updates to clinical guidelines, advocating for peripheral hypertonic saline as a first-line option in appropriate scenarios to enhance patient outcomes and streamline care delivery. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42024612330.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.027
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207