Skip to content

Opening book details…

Can I read Risk of catheter‐related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta‐analysis on EtoBox?

Risk of catheter‐related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta‐analysis by Lu, Huapeng ;Hou, Yeru ;Chen, Jiejie ;Guo, Yan ;Lang, Lan ;Zheng, Xuemei ;Xin, Xia ;Lv, Yi ;Yang, Qinling is a Health Professions article available to read on EtoBox.

What is Risk of catheter‐related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta‐analysis about?

## Abstract ## Background Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), but the prevalence associated with each is not clear. ## Objective To compare the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs with a meta‐analysis. ## Methods The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched. All studies comparing the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. A fixed effects model was used to generate estimates of CRBSI risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs. Publication bias was evaluated, and meta‐analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3. ## Results A total of 167 studies were identified. Ten studies were collected, involving 33,322 patients. The prevalence of CRBSI with MCs and PICCs was 0.58% (40/6,900) and 0.48% (127/26,422), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between MCs and PICCs (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50–1.17, __

Who reads Risk of catheter‐related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta‐analysis?

It is typically read by researchers, students, and practitioners in Health Professions.

Author
Lu, Huapeng ;Hou, Yeru ;Chen, Jiejie ;Guo, Yan ;Lang, Lan ;Zheng, Xuemei ;Xin, Xia ;Lv, Yi ;Yang, Qinling
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Published
2020
Language
EN
Field
Health Professions (Health Sciences)

More by Lu, Huapeng ;Hou, Yeru ;Chen, Jiejie ;Guo, Yan ;Lang, Lan ;Zheng, Xuemei ;Xin, Xia ;Lv, Yi ;Yang, Qinling

Browse all works by Lu, Huapeng ;Hou, Yeru ;Chen, Jiejie ;Guo, Yan ;Lang, Lan ;Zheng, Xuemei ;Xin, Xia ;Lv, Yi ;Yang, Qinling