Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects of continuous quality improvement (CQI) in the care of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 40 patients who received PICC treatment in our hospital between January and December 2011, and then we found out the main problems of PICC catheter care, analyzed the related factors for complications of PICC, and formulated corresponding nursing countermeasures. PICC receivers between January and December 2012 were regarded as controls. Then, we compared the complication incidence and satisfaction of patients between the two groups before and after the implementation of CQI. ResultsAfter the implementation of CQI, complication incidence was significantly lower (P<0.05). The satisfaction degree of patients toward caring rose to 87.8%, which was statistically significant (P<0.05). ConclusionThe implementation of CQI is beneficial to reduce complications of PICC treatment, and patients'satisfaction rate is also significantly increased.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of X-ray for evaluating the tip position of umbilical venous catheterization (UVC). MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect diagnostic tests for UVC tip localisation from inception to 1 May 2023. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0 software. Results Twelve articles involving 1 055 patients were included. The sensitivity and specificity of Negar Yazdani’s study were both 100%. The results of the meta-analysis (the remaining eleven articles, n=951) indicated a pooled sensitivity of 0.7 (95%CI 0.6 to 0.8), a pooled specificity of 0.8 (95%CI 0.7 to 0.9), a positive likelihood ratio of 4.0 (95%CI 2.0 to 8.1), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.4 (95%CI 0.2 to 0.6) and a diagnostic odds ratio of 11 (95%CI 3 to 36) with an area under the cumulative receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8 (95%CI 0.8 to 0.9). A subgroup analysis was performed according to the different methods of judging X, the 8th–9th thoracic, the 9th–10th thoracic and combined judgement of the diaphragmatic plane + the vertebral body + the heart shadow. The sensitivities of the 3 groups were 0.8 (95%CI 0.5 to 0.9), 0.5 (95%CI 0.4 to 0.7) and 0.8 (95%CI 0.6 to 0.9); the specificities of the 3 groups were 0.8 (95%CI 0.6 to 0.9), 0.76 (95%CI 0.6 to 0.9) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.96). The areas under the cumulative receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.9 (95%CI 0.8 to 0.9), 0.7 (95%CI 0.6 to 0.7) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.89 to 0.94). ConclusionSome error is present when determining the catheter tip position by X-ray, in which the evaluation of the umbilical vein catheter tip position through a comprehensive evaluation of the diaphragmatic plane, the heart margin and the vertebral body is more powerful than the evaluation of the vertebral body alone.