Cucc Review Sample

What problem(s) did the researchers study and why? Due to significant health risks in different types of central venous lines such as CVC, PORT or t-CVC, the problem researchers studied in this systematic review was to analyze different literature that compares the use of central venous lines and PICC lines in order to validate the advantages that accompany PICC lines.
Who participated in the study? Literature of only prospective studies, up to March 2011, was accessed through electronic databases that included PubMed, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library. The population studied was patients, both children and adults, in need of a central venous line.
How was the research conducted? In order to accumulate and synthesize the literature of the systematic review, a few questions were included. One of the questions asked sought to answer the advantageous and disadvantageous processes of PICC lines in comparison to other central venous lines. This processes included successfully inserting a line, the function, late and early complications and the quality of patient care and their
A total of 827 abstracts were searched. Together, 48 articles were read by one of the three reviewers in its entirety. Of the 48 articles read, 37 did not meet the criteria being assessed and were excluded from the systematic review. The remainder of the articles were given a grade; only two of which given a judgment of medium quality. The results of the combined two articles showed that PICC lines had a higher outcome of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) than with patients with a CVC line insertion. Additionally, patients were at a decreased risk of catheter occlusion with a PICC line in comparison to patients with a t-CVC or PORT. Based on the study, the use of PICC lines have been solely for professional interests. Since there is an insufficient amount of literature given, there is no way of knowing whether the choice of a PICC line was ethical or