| Title |
Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-015-0192-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Megan Dale, Ailish Higgins, Grace Carolan-Rees |
| Abstract |
In current clinical practice, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are typically inserted using external anatomical measurements and a confirmatory chest X-ray, or using fluoroscopy. The Sherlock 3CG(®) Tip Confirmation System (TCS) allows magnetic tracking of the PICC tip during insertion and confirmation of the final location using ECG, meaning that most patients will not require a chest X-ray or fluoroscopy. The Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS was evaluated in 2014 by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. The company (C.R. Bard Ltd) identified four abstracts, one paper pending publication and questionnaire data from NHS users of the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS. None of the evidence included a comparator arm. Placement accuracy of PICCs using the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS where a chest X-ray was also used ranged from 79.5 to 100 %. The company reported that 9 out of 16 NHS centres that used the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS were no longer using chest X-rays to routinely confirm PICC tip location. The evidence did not report the need for catheter repositioning, re-insertion, staff time savings, treatment delays, length of stay, quality of life outcomes or complications. The company's model found that the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS was cost saving by GBP25.67 per patient compared to blind bedside PICC insertion. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) adapted the company's model to test alternative assumptions for nurse time, theatre cost, malposition rate and reinsertion method, and found that the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS was cost incurring by GBP9.37 per patient compared to blind bedside PICC insertion. The use of the Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS in the UK NHS compared to blind PICC insertion using a confirmatory chest X-ray appears to hover around being cost neutral. Staff time and accuracy were key drivers in the model: evidence for these is sparse and the reality will vary in different situations. If evidence became available for outcomes after the initial insertion, such as replacement, complications and adverse events, the cost implications may change. The direction of this potential change is not known. NICE published guidance MTG24 in March 2015 recommending that the case for adoption of Sherlock 3CG(®) TCS was supported by the evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 23% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 29% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,423,683
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#598
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,960
of 266,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.