The journal of vascular access · 2023
Comparison of laboratory results between central venous access devices and venipuncture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Kai, Kong Wenqiang, Liao Changju, Liang Yufen, Ding Juan, Zhu Xiaojuan, Yang Kun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between two blood sampling methods via central venous access devices (CVADs) and venipuncture.
METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for controlled studies that compared the differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between venipuncture and CVADs from the date of database establishment to July 2022. Two researchers independently performed the literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. The standardized mean difference was used as the effect size for continuous variables and a 95% confidence interval was provided. The random-effects model was used for an I2 > 50%, otherwise the fixed-effects model was used. Sources of heterogeneity were determined by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis, as indicated.
RESULTS: This review ultimately identified 17 studies for systematic review, of which 12 were selected for meta-analysis. A total of 541 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. With the exception of the activated partial thromboplastin time, there were no significant differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide substantial evidence that blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs had equal reliability in most laboratory tests. Serial blood sampling via CVADs will reduce the risk of bleeding episodes and pain at the blood collection site, and safety for healthcare professionals.
METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for controlled studies that compared the differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between venipuncture and CVADs from the date of database establishment to July 2022. Two researchers independently performed the literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. The standardized mean difference was used as the effect size for continuous variables and a 95% confidence interval was provided. The random-effects model was used for an I2 > 50%, otherwise the fixed-effects model was used. Sources of heterogeneity were determined by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis, as indicated.
RESULTS: This review ultimately identified 17 studies for systematic review, of which 12 were selected for meta-analysis. A total of 541 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. With the exception of the activated partial thromboplastin time, there were no significant differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide substantial evidence that blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs had equal reliability in most laboratory tests. Serial blood sampling via CVADs will reduce the risk of bleeding episodes and pain at the blood collection site, and safety for healthcare professionals.