Which Catheter is the Best Buy?

1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Piraino

Good but not perfect results can be obtained with many types of catheters. Convincing data demonstrating superiority of one catheter over another are not available. What is the comparative cost of these catheters? The straight Tenckhoff catheter remains the least expensive at $42.50 (Quinton Instrument Company). Until a large randomized trial is done demonstrating a clear superiority of another catheter, we will continue to use the straight double-cuff Tenckhoff catheter.

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Down ◽  
Chris Metcalfe ◽  
Kerry Avery ◽  
Sian Noble ◽  
J. Athene Lane ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 86 (6) ◽  
pp. 1717-1721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S Kramer ◽  
Lidia Matush ◽  
Irina Vanilovich ◽  
Robert W Platt ◽  
Natalia Bogdanovich ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Haynes ◽  
◽  
Fang Chen ◽  
Elizabeth Wincott ◽  
Rejive Dayanandan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Large randomized trials are the best method to test the efficacy and safety of treatments expected to have moderate effects. We observed a significant decline in potential participants’ response to mailed invitations to participate in such trials over a 10-year period and investigated possible reasons behind this and potential modifications to the invitation process to mitigate it. Methods Participants who declined to participate in the HPS2-THRIVE trial were asked to give a reason. Formal focus groups were conducted to explore the reasons that potential participants might have for not participating. In addition, two embedded randomized comparisons around the timing of provision of the full participant information leaflet (PIL) and its style were conducted during recruitment into this large randomized trial. HPS2-THRIVE is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00461630). Results The commonest reason given for declining invitations related to mobility and transportation (despite the offer of travel expenses). Both the focus groups and potential participants who declined their invitation indicated concern about side-effects of the treatment (as presented in the PIL) as a reason for declining the invitation. Neither delaying provision of the full PIL until the potential participant attended the trial clinic, nor modifying the style of the PIL improved the proportion of potential participants entering the trial: odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.17) and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94–1.28), respectively. However, modifying the style of the PIL did increase the proportion of participants attending screening appointments (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03–1.33). Conclusions Many reasons given for not participating in trials are not tractable to individual trials. However, modification of the PIL does show potential to modestly improve participation. If further trials could identify similar simple interventions that were beneficial, their net effects could substantially improve trial participation and facilitate recruitment into large trials.


2007 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. S240-S241
Author(s):  
M. Rodriguez-Torres ◽  
S. Govindarajan ◽  
R. Sola ◽  
N. Clumeck ◽  
E. Lissen ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Armitage ◽  
Harold Hin ◽  
Joseph Tomson ◽  
Mike Lay ◽  
Mike Hill ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document