Cochrane · systematic review · CD011070
Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications
Marsh, N, Webster, J, Mihala, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 25%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 8 · 66.7%Low 1 · 8.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Transparent dressing or gauze for securing peripheral venous catheters
Population: Patients requiring a peripheral venous catheter
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PVC failure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dislodgement/accidental removal | RR 0.4 [0.17, 0.92] | 2 studies · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phlebitis | RR 0.89 [0.47, 1.68] | 3 studies · 379 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bordered transparent dressing versus securement device for securing peripheral venous catheters
Population: Patients requiring a peripheral venous catheter
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PVC failure Observation Bordered transparent dressing vs securement device | RR 0.86 [0.64, 1.16] | 1 study · 302 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dislodgement/accidental removal Observation Bordered transparent dressing vs securement device | RR 0.14 [0.03, 0.63] | 1 study · 302 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phlebitis Observation Bordered transparent dressing vs securement device | RR 8.11 [1.03, 64.02] | 1 study · 302 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bordered transparent dressing versus tape for securing peripheral intravenous catheters
Population: Patients requiring a peripheral venous catheter
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PVC failure Observation Bordered transparent dressing vs tape | RR 1.84 [1.09, 3.11] | 1 study · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dislodgement/accidental removal Observation Bordered transparent dressing vs tape | RR 1.46 [0.51, 4.14] | 1 study · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phlebitis Bordered transparent dressing vs tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transparent dressing versus sticking plaster for securing peripheral venous catheters
Population: Patients requiring a peripheral venous catheter
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PVC failure Transparent dressing vs sticking plaster | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dislodgement/accidental removal Observation Transparent dressing vs sticking plaster | RR 1.34 [0.72, 2.47] | 1 study · 703 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phlebitis Observation Transparent dressing vs sticking plaster | RR 0.89 [0.53, 1.49] | 1 study · 703 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |