↓ Skip to main content

Varied flushing frequency and volume to prevent peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial in adult medical-surgical hospital patients

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Varied flushing frequency and volume to prevent peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial in adult medical-surgical hospital patients
Published in
Trials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1470-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Keogh, Julie Flynn, Nicole Marsh, Gabor Mihala, Karen Davies, Claire Rickard

Abstract

Research has identified high failure rates of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) and varied flushing practices. This is a single-centre, pilot, non-masked, factorial randomised controlled trial. Participants were adults, with a PIVC of expected use ≥24 hours (n = 160), admitted to general medical or surgical wards of a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland (Australia). Patients were randomly allocated to one of four flush groups using manually prepared syringes and 0.9 % sodium chloride: 10 mL or 3 mL flush, every 24 or 6 hours. The primary endpoint was PIVC failure, a composite measure of occlusion, infiltration, accidental dislodgement and phlebitis. PIVC average dwell was 3.1 days. PIVC failure rates per 1000 hours were not significantly different for the volume intervention (4.84 [3 mL] versus 7.44 [10 mL], p = 0.06, log-rank). PIVC failure rates per 1000 hours were also not significantly different for the frequency intervention (5.06 [24 hour] versus 7.34 [6 hour], p = 0.05, log-rank). Cox proportional hazard regression found neither the flushing nor frequency intervention, or their interaction (p = 0.21) to be significantly associated with PIVC failure. However, female gender (hazard ratio [HR] 2.2 [1.3-3.6], p < 0.01), insertion in hand/posterior wrist (HR 1.7 [1.0-2.7], p < 0.05) and the rate per day of PIVC access (combined flushes and medication pushes) (HR 1.2 [1.1-1.4], p < 0.01) significantly predicted PIVC failure. Neither increased flushing volume nor frequency significantly altered the risk of PIVC failure. Female gender, hand/posterior wrist placement and episodes of access (flushes and medication) may be more important. Larger, definitive trials are feasible and required. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12615000025538 . Registered on 19 January 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 7 6%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 47 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Engineering 7 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 31 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,142,485
of 18,100,306 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#790
of 4,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,505
of 272,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,100,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them