Systematic review of emergency department central venous and arterial catheter infection

Table 1 Excluded articles based on quality assessment

Cohort studies
Excluded study	Design	Patient selection	Well-defined infectious outcome	Protection Against Confounding	Protection against bias	Adequate power	Appropriate variables	Appropriate statistical methods	Reported included and excluded subjects	Global assessment
Jamulitrat 2002 [24]	Prospective cohort, Thailand	Unclear	Unclear	Poor quality	Poor quality	Unclear	Unclear	Poor quality	Not done	Study excluded because of insufficient information to assess quality
Balls 2007 [21]	Prospective cohort, USA, 634 catheters	Unclear	Not done	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Study excluded because of insufficient information to assess quality
Pujol 2007 [22]	Unclear design, Spain, compared CVC and peripheral line infection rates	Poor quality	Poor quality	Poor quality	Not done	Not done	Not done	Not done	Not done	Study excluded because data on uninfected lines were not collected
Randomized controlled trial
Excluded study	Allocation concealed	Participant follow-up	Blinded or objective assessment	Baseline measurement	Reliable outcome	Protection against confounding	Global assessment
Collin 1999 [23]	Not done	Good quality	Unclear	Unclear	Poor quality	Good quality	Study excluded because of lack of information to assess quality

Adapted from STROBE Statement [19]
Adapted from the QUOROM statement for reports of randomized controlled trials [42]

ISSN: 1865-1380