I have always wondered if there is a firm rule published anywhere on when a study becomes too old?
The Maki study saying that PICC lines have high infection rates wasÂ published in chest 2005.Â The data was collected in 1998 and the catheters used were not placed with ultrasound or MST and the tips were not central.Â The PICC lines did not get chlorhexidiene or biopatchs or full barrier placement.Â Is this study obselete?
The grove study that everyone brings out was published in 2000 or 2001 and the PICC lines placed were silicone.Â The RN placements were not placed with ultrasound or MST and were not even x-rayed as some were midclavicular.Â The data was collected in the late 1990's.Â
At AVA a study was presented by Monreal from 1994 from Spain on a 15.3% PE rate for upper arm catheters.Â The catheters were made from poly vinyl chloride which was discontinued in the US in the 80's however there were also silicone lines as well.Â The midlines were made of PVC.Â PVC was very stiff and caused a higher rate of infection in the old literature and was discontinued in the US.Â
Back to the point at what point does a study become too old to use.Â At what point isÂ a study no longer valid.Â Â Technology changes but we are pulling out studies with old technology to validate rationales and assumptions.Â
Is there a rule?Â I just bought a book by Dotter on IV Therapy from 1924 so I thought I would pull some rationale to use today from that book.Â I am sure all of the info is still valid.
Bard Access Systems