Access technique and its problems in parenteral nutrition - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 9

Catheter type, access technique, and the catheter position should be selected considering to the anticipated duration of PN aiming at the lowest complication risks (infectious and non-infectious). Long-term (>7-10 days) parenteral nutrition (PN) requires central venous access whereas for PN <3 weeks percutaneously inserted catheters and for PN >3 weeks subcutaneous tunnelled catheters or port systems are appropriate. CVC (central venous catheter) should be flushed with isotonic NaCl solution before and after PN application and during CVC occlusions. Strict indications are required for central venous access placement and the catheter should be removed as soon as possible if not required any more. Blood samples should not to be taken from the CVC. If catheter infection is suspected, peripheral blood-culture samples and culture samples from each catheter lumen should be taken simultaneously. Removal of the CVC should be carried out immediately if there are pronounced signs of local infection at the insertion site and/or clinical suspicion of catheter-induced sepsis. In case PN is indicated for a short period (max. 7-10 days), a peripheral venous access can be used if no hyperosmolar solutions (>800 mosm/L) or solutions with a high titration acidity or alkalinity are used. A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) can remain in situ for as long as it is clinically required unless there are signs of inflammation at the insertion site.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines?

BACKGROUND PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines. METHODS Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated. RESULTS Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35). CONCLUSIONS Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.