CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 77Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisIntravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyVascular Procedures and Complications

Tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms for the insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters in adult hospitalized patients: a systematic scoping review of literature

Open access
Carr, Peter J., Higgins, Niall S., Cooke, Marie L., Rippey, James, Rickard, Claire M.·2017·Journal of Hospital Medicine
DOI 10.12788/jhm.2836
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: First‐time peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion success is dependent on patient, clinician, and product factors. Failed PIVC insertion are an under‐recognized clinical phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To provide a scoping review of decision aids for PIVC insertion including tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms (TRAs) and their findings on factors associated with insertion success. METHODS: In June 2016, a systematic literature search was performed using the medical subject heading of peripheral catheterization and tool* or rule* or algorithm*. Data extraction included clinician, patient, and/or product variables associated with PIVC insertion success. Information about TRA reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility was also extracted. RESULTS: We screened 36 studies, and included 13 for review. Seven papers reported insertion success ranging from 61%‐90% (4030 insertion attempts), 6 on validity, and 5 on reliability, with none reporting on responsiveness and utility. Failed insertions were associated with obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71‐1.7; 2 studies) and smaller gauge PIVCs (OR, 6.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 3.4‐11.9). Successful inser tions were associated with visible veins (OR, 0.87‐3.63; 3 studies) or palpable veins (OR, 0.79‐5.05; 3 studies) and inserters with greater procedural volume (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.6‐12.1) or who predicted that insertion would be successful (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04‐1.07). Definitions of insertion difficulty are heterogeneous such as time to insert to a number of failed attempts. CONCLUSION: Few well‐validated reliable TRAs exist for PIVC insertion. Patients would benefit from a validated, clinically pragmatic TRA that matches insertion difficulty with clinician competency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12788/jhm.2836

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent systematic literature reviews have identified an abundance of screening rules, tools, or algorithms for predicting DIVA, but none have been widely adopted in practice.

    “Recent SLRs have identified an abundance of screening rules, tools, or algorithms for predicting DIVA, but, to the authors' knowledge, none of these prediction devices have been widely adopted in practice.”

    From An Improved Definition and SAFE Rule for Predicting Difficult Intravascular Access (DIVA) in Hospitalized Adults (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Definitions of DIVA are heterogeneous, and there are very few clinical prediction rules and reliable, well-validated algorithms for PIVC insertion.

    “The definitions of DIVA are heterogeneous, and there are very few clinical prediction rules and reliable and well-validated algorithms for the insertion of the PIVC.3 4”

    From Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) in the adult population: an umbrella review (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3891872/pdf/pone.0086167.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carr, P. J., Higgins, N. S., Cooke, M. L., Rippey, J., & Rickard, C. M.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Carr, Peter J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Hospital Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-06
Volume
12
Issue
10
Pages
851-858
ISSN
  • 1553-5592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-5606
DOI
10.12788/jhm.2836
OpenAlex
W2752884299
Semantic Scholar
161c81c49afac145a0f5fd222317c2f602e24b07
Cited by
77
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
Keywords
peripheral intravenous catheter insertion, insertion success, clinical prediction rules, decision aids, insertion difficulty, obesity, catheter gauge, hospitalized adults
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Catheterization, Peripheral, Clinical Competence, Decision Support Techniques, Hospitalization, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review