PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.
METHODS: A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.
RESULTS: From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.
METHODS: A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.
RESULTS: From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.
摘要：
背景：医疗保健中缺乏一致的术语和定义会损害沟通，患者安全,不良事件的优化管理，和研究进展。本范围审查的目的是了解用于描述中心静脉接入装置（CVAD）的术语，在接受癌症治疗的人中，相关的并发症和过早切除的原因。它还试图确定并发症和过早切除原因的定义来源。目的是映射所使用的语言和描述，并探索标准化的机会。
方法：对MedLine的系统搜索，PubMed,科克伦,进行CINAHLComplete和Embase数据库。资格标准包括，但不仅限于，成人癌症患者，以及2017年至2022年之间发表的研究。在Covidence中筛选文章并提取数据。数据图表包括研究特征和CVAD的详细信息，包括并发症和过早切除原因的术语和定义来源。描述性统计，表格和条形图用于总结图表数据。
结果：从总共2363项可能符合条件的研究中，292人被纳入审查。大多数是观察性研究（n=174/60％）。总共使用了213个独特的描述符来指代CVAD，在193项研究中仅有84项(44%)定义了过早去除CVAD的所有原因，和并发症定义在292项研究中的56（57％）。如有,定义来自作者和/或来自国家资源和/或其他已发表的研究。
结论：发现CVAD术语存在很大差异，缺乏相关并发症和过早切除原因的标准定义。这项范围审查表明，有必要标准化CVAD命名法，以加强医疗保健专业人员之间的沟通，因为正在接受癌症治疗的患者在急性和长期护理之间过渡。为了提高患者的安全性和研究方案的严谨性，提高数据共享能力。
方法：对MedLine的系统搜索，PubMed,科克伦,进行CINAHLComplete和Embase数据库。资格标准包括，但不仅限于，成人癌症患者，以及2017年至2022年之间发表的研究。在Covidence中筛选文章并提取数据。数据图表包括研究特征和CVAD的详细信息，包括并发症和过早切除原因的术语和定义来源。描述性统计，表格和条形图用于总结图表数据。
结果：从总共2363项可能符合条件的研究中，292人被纳入审查。大多数是观察性研究（n=174/60％）。总共使用了213个独特的描述符来指代CVAD，在193项研究中仅有84项(44%)定义了过早去除CVAD的所有原因，和并发症定义在292项研究中的56（57％）。如有,定义来自作者和/或来自国家资源和/或其他已发表的研究。
结论：发现CVAD术语存在很大差异，缺乏相关并发症和过早切除原因的标准定义。这项范围审查表明，有必要标准化CVAD命名法，以加强医疗保健专业人员之间的沟通，因为正在接受癌症治疗的患者在急性和长期护理之间过渡。为了提高患者的安全性和研究方案的严谨性，提高数据共享能力。
