I would like to thank you for your post that provided some insights regarding the Routine versus clinically indicated replacement PVCs. I think this is among the best articles to use when reading about such a topic because it has utilized many studies to draw its conclusions. The use of different articles implies that the author was able to obtain adequate data to make the relevant conclusion and recommendation for future studies. I concur with the researcher’s use of heterogeneity to compare the independent and dependent variable in the study. I also recognize the use of statistical heterogeneity when performing single trials, especially when doing a meta-analysis (Webster, 2015). This is because it is key to investigating the strength of the study. However, I would like to request you to clarify whether the omission of some of the reviews affected the reliability of the results in the article. The findings of the article are sensible because I believe that PVC should be changed when it is clinically indicated. The reason behind my argument is that even when PVC has been used, there is an insignificant difference.
After carefully reading your post, I concur with you that the study was characterized by many limitations. This is common, especially when some of the reviews have used a small sample population in the study. It is important to state that large samples are important in yielding reliable results in a study. Thus, the larger the sample population, the stronger the results yielded. I support the fact that the policy should remain the way it is and conduct routine PVC changes as it has been doing because the study found that there was no significant difference was found. However, the policymakers should be keen and ready to change because this study recommends that more research be conducted to further investigate the issue and if it yields different results, then, they will be forced to change the existing one. In fact, it is anticipated that if another study is conducted defining phlebitis, a more standard of diagnosing the difference would be found as Webster (2015) suggests.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Routine versus clinically indicated replacement PVCs"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

  • Webster, J. (2015). Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Of Systematic Reviews, (8), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4