SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excelle...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Applied health economics and health policy 2018-12, Vol.16 (6), p.779-791 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 791 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 779 |
| container_title | Applied health economics and health policy |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Macmillan, Tom Pennington, Mark Summers, Jennifer A. Goddard, Kate Zala, Darshan Herz, Naomi Peacock, Janet L. Keevil, Stephen Chalkidou, Anastasia |
| description | Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as a part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, selected this device for evaluation and invited the manufacturer, Interrad Medical, to submit clinical and economic evidence. The King’s Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, independently critiqued the manufacturer’s submissions. The External Assessment Centre found a lack of evidence comparing SecurAcath with alternative approaches to securement (StatLock, suturing, tape securement), with one unpublished randomised controlled trial providing the strongest evidence. The External Assessment Centre conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that there is some evidence indicating the non-inferiority of SecurAcath compared to StatLock. The External Assessment Centre considered the manufacturer’s economic model to be appropriate but made revisions to some parameters and noted significant heterogeneity in the included studies. The revised model indicated that StatLock was more cost effective than SecurAcath for catheter indwell times of up to 5 days; however, for medium- and long-term indwell times, SecurAcath was the most cost-effective option. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Guidance MTG 34, issued in June 2017, recommended the adoption of SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters within the National Health Service in England. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6244619</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2090295989</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-db6a594405d0e05ce7234379deace3a325e05cf345ab9fd9d1b3e62a0cb8db5f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtr3DAQx0Vpyav5AL0UQS-9uNXbqx4Ki8ljIWkLSc5Clsa7Dl5rK9mF_faR4zR9QA5Cmpnf_DXDH6F3lHyihJSfkyBMLgpC8xGsLOgrdERpqQu60Or141sWUkl2iI5TuieEKaXFATrkhDKuJTlC7gbcGJfODhvchIgfw7Zf4x8Q290Gou26PV71CeIAHlfQDzmFq8zDADF9wUv8bVWd4WvwrcuVW3CbPnRhvccXY-tt7-AtetPYLsHp032C7s7PbqvL4ur7xapaXhVOEj4UvlZWaiGI9ASIdFAyLnipPVgH3HImp2zDhbS1brz2tOagmCWuXvhaNvwEfZ11d2O9Be_mWc0utlsb9ybY1vxb6duNWYdfRjEhFNVZ4OOTQAw_R0iD2bbJQdfZHsKYDCOaMC31YkI__IfehzH2eT3DqNCKZk2VKTpTLoaUIjTPw1BiJgvNbKHJFprJQkNzz_u_t3ju-O1ZBtgMpN3kFMQ_X7-s-gA5lafE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2149616246</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Macmillan, Tom ; Pennington, Mark ; Summers, Jennifer A. ; Goddard, Kate ; Zala, Darshan ; Herz, Naomi ; Peacock, Janet L. ; Keevil, Stephen ; Chalkidou, Anastasia</creator><creatorcontrib>Macmillan, Tom ; Pennington, Mark ; Summers, Jennifer A. ; Goddard, Kate ; Zala, Darshan ; Herz, Naomi ; Peacock, Janet L. ; Keevil, Stephen ; Chalkidou, Anastasia</creatorcontrib><description>Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as a part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, selected this device for evaluation and invited the manufacturer, Interrad Medical, to submit clinical and economic evidence. The King’s Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, independently critiqued the manufacturer’s submissions. The External Assessment Centre found a lack of evidence comparing SecurAcath with alternative approaches to securement (StatLock, suturing, tape securement), with one unpublished randomised controlled trial providing the strongest evidence. The External Assessment Centre conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that there is some evidence indicating the non-inferiority of SecurAcath compared to StatLock. The External Assessment Centre considered the manufacturer’s economic model to be appropriate but made revisions to some parameters and noted significant heterogeneity in the included studies. The revised model indicated that StatLock was more cost effective than SecurAcath for catheter indwell times of up to 5 days; however, for medium- and long-term indwell times, SecurAcath was the most cost-effective option. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Guidance MTG 34, issued in June 2017, recommended the adoption of SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters within the National Health Service in England.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1175-5652</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1179-1896</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-1896</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30123950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Adoption of innovations ; Alternative approaches ; Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation ; Catheterization, Central Venous - methods ; Catheters ; Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects ; Chemotherapy ; Cost analysis ; Economic models ; Economics ; Health Administration ; Health care expenditures ; Health Economics ; Health services ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Infections ; Medical equipment ; Medical instruments ; Medical technology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Needlestick injuries ; Parenteral nutrition ; Patients ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Public Health ; Pulmonary arteries ; Quality of Life Research ; Review ; Review Article ; Skin ; Systematic review ; Technology ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical</subject><ispartof>Applied health economics and health policy, 2018-12, Vol.16 (6), p.779-791</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media Dec 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-db6a594405d0e05ce7234379deace3a325e05cf345ab9fd9d1b3e62a0cb8db5f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-db6a594405d0e05ce7234379deace3a325e05cf345ab9fd9d1b3e62a0cb8db5f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7274-797X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,886,27870,27928,27929,41492,42561,51323</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30123950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Macmillan, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Jennifer A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goddard, Kate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zala, Darshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herz, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Janet L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keevil, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalkidou, Anastasia</creatorcontrib><title>SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance</title><title>Applied health economics and health policy</title><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><description>Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as a part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, selected this device for evaluation and invited the manufacturer, Interrad Medical, to submit clinical and economic evidence. The King’s Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, independently critiqued the manufacturer’s submissions. The External Assessment Centre found a lack of evidence comparing SecurAcath with alternative approaches to securement (StatLock, suturing, tape securement), with one unpublished randomised controlled trial providing the strongest evidence. The External Assessment Centre conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that there is some evidence indicating the non-inferiority of SecurAcath compared to StatLock. The External Assessment Centre considered the manufacturer’s economic model to be appropriate but made revisions to some parameters and noted significant heterogeneity in the included studies. The revised model indicated that StatLock was more cost effective than SecurAcath for catheter indwell times of up to 5 days; however, for medium- and long-term indwell times, SecurAcath was the most cost-effective option. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Guidance MTG 34, issued in June 2017, recommended the adoption of SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters within the National Health Service in England.</description><subject>Adoption of innovations</subject><subject>Alternative approaches</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - methods</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Health Administration</subject><subject>Health care expenditures</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical instruments</subject><subject>Medical technology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Needlestick injuries</subject><subject>Parenteral nutrition</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Pulmonary arteries</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical</subject><issn>1175-5652</issn><issn>1179-1896</issn><issn>1179-1896</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtr3DAQx0Vpyav5AL0UQS-9uNXbqx4Ki8ljIWkLSc5Clsa7Dl5rK9mF_faR4zR9QA5Cmpnf_DXDH6F3lHyihJSfkyBMLgpC8xGsLOgrdERpqQu60Or141sWUkl2iI5TuieEKaXFATrkhDKuJTlC7gbcGJfODhvchIgfw7Zf4x8Q290Gou26PV71CeIAHlfQDzmFq8zDADF9wUv8bVWd4WvwrcuVW3CbPnRhvccXY-tt7-AtetPYLsHp032C7s7PbqvL4ur7xapaXhVOEj4UvlZWaiGI9ASIdFAyLnipPVgH3HImp2zDhbS1brz2tOagmCWuXvhaNvwEfZ11d2O9Be_mWc0utlsb9ybY1vxb6duNWYdfRjEhFNVZ4OOTQAw_R0iD2bbJQdfZHsKYDCOaMC31YkI__IfehzH2eT3DqNCKZk2VKTpTLoaUIjTPw1BiJgvNbKHJFprJQkNzz_u_t3ju-O1ZBtgMpN3kFMQ_X7-s-gA5lafE</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Macmillan, Tom</creator><creator>Pennington, Mark</creator><creator>Summers, Jennifer A.</creator><creator>Goddard, Kate</creator><creator>Zala, Darshan</creator><creator>Herz, Naomi</creator><creator>Peacock, Janet L.</creator><creator>Keevil, Stephen</creator><creator>Chalkidou, Anastasia</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7274-797X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance</title><author>Macmillan, Tom ; Pennington, Mark ; Summers, Jennifer A. ; Goddard, Kate ; Zala, Darshan ; Herz, Naomi ; Peacock, Janet L. ; Keevil, Stephen ; Chalkidou, Anastasia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-db6a594405d0e05ce7234379deace3a325e05cf345ab9fd9d1b3e62a0cb8db5f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adoption of innovations</topic><topic>Alternative approaches</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - methods</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Health Administration</topic><topic>Health care expenditures</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical instruments</topic><topic>Medical technology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Needlestick injuries</topic><topic>Parenteral nutrition</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Pulmonary arteries</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Macmillan, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Jennifer A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goddard, Kate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zala, Darshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herz, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Janet L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keevil, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalkidou, Anastasia</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Proquest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Applied health economics and health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Macmillan, Tom</au><au>Pennington, Mark</au><au>Summers, Jennifer A.</au><au>Goddard, Kate</au><au>Zala, Darshan</au><au>Herz, Naomi</au><au>Peacock, Janet L.</au><au>Keevil, Stephen</au><au>Chalkidou, Anastasia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance</atitle><jtitle>Applied health economics and health policy</jtitle><stitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</stitle><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>779</spage><epage>791</epage><pages>779-791</pages><issn>1175-5652</issn><issn>1179-1896</issn><eissn>1179-1896</eissn><abstract>Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as a part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, selected this device for evaluation and invited the manufacturer, Interrad Medical, to submit clinical and economic evidence. The King’s Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, independently critiqued the manufacturer’s submissions. The External Assessment Centre found a lack of evidence comparing SecurAcath with alternative approaches to securement (StatLock, suturing, tape securement), with one unpublished randomised controlled trial providing the strongest evidence. The External Assessment Centre conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that there is some evidence indicating the non-inferiority of SecurAcath compared to StatLock. The External Assessment Centre considered the manufacturer’s economic model to be appropriate but made revisions to some parameters and noted significant heterogeneity in the included studies. The revised model indicated that StatLock was more cost effective than SecurAcath for catheter indwell times of up to 5 days; however, for medium- and long-term indwell times, SecurAcath was the most cost-effective option. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Guidance MTG 34, issued in June 2017, recommended the adoption of SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters within the National Health Service in England.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>30123950</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7274-797X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1175-5652 |
| ispartof | Applied health economics and health policy, 2018-12, Vol.16 (6), p.779-791 |
| issn | 1175-5652 1179-1896 1179-1896 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6244619 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Adoption of innovations Alternative approaches Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation Catheterization, Central Venous - methods Catheters Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects Chemotherapy Cost analysis Economic models Economics Health Administration Health care expenditures Health Economics Health services Heterogeneity Humans Infections Medical equipment Medical instruments Medical technology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Needlestick injuries Parenteral nutrition Patients Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Practice Guidelines as Topic Public Health Pulmonary arteries Quality of Life Research Review Review Article Skin Systematic review Technology Technology Assessment, Biomedical |
| title | SecurAcath for Securing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T05%3A52%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SecurAcath%20for%20Securing%20Peripherally%20Inserted%20Central%20Catheters:%20A%20NICE%20Medical%20Technology%20Guidance&rft.jtitle=Applied%20health%20economics%20and%20health%20policy&rft.au=Macmillan,%20Tom&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=779&rft.epage=791&rft.pages=779-791&rft.issn=1175-5652&rft.eissn=1179-1896&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40258-018-0427-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2090295989%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2149616246&rft_id=info:pmid/30123950&rfr_iscdi=true |