Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map

To systematically map the landscape of central venous access device research from 2014 to 2024, identifying critical gaps in evidence that may impact nursing practice and patient outcomes across the full device lifecycle from selection through to removal.

This review was conducted in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched with additional hand-searching of reference lists from included reviews.

We systematically reviewed literature published between 2014 and 2024, mapping 710 studies on central venous access device interventions and outcomes. Studies were categorised by design, population, setting, device characteristics, intervention types, and outcomes. Evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence framework.

Of 710 included studies, 89 were systematic reviews and 621 primary studies, of which 41.1% (n = 292) were randomised controlled trials. Research was primarily conducted in high-income countries (n = 405, 65.2%) and focused on adults (n = 370, 59.6%) in hospital inpatient settings (n = 588, 94.7%). Catheter insertion and infection prevention dominated the evidence base, while device selection and removal procedures were less studied. Infection outcomes were extensively reported (bloodstream infection: n = 455, 13.6% of 3349 outcomes), while patient-reported outcomes (n = 218, 6.5%) and cost (n = 60, 1.8%) were underrepresented.

This review reveals that central venous access device research is predominantly focused on insertion and infection prevention while other key parts of nursing practice are under-supported.

Future nursing research should address these gaps to improve evidence-based care across diverse populations and healthcare contexts, particularly focusing on understudied device types, settings, and vulnerable populations.

This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map.

This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.