May 2004 Guideline
A database search for existing infusion therapy guidelines was conducted by a university health sciences library. A subsequent search of the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases was conducted for guidelines and articles published from January 1, 1995 to November 2002 using the following search terms: "intravenous therapy", "infusion therapy", "IV therapy", "venous access", "practice guideline(s)", "clinical practice guideline(s)", "standards", "consensus statement(s)", "consensus", "evidence-based guidelines" and "best practice guidelines."
One individual searched an established list of Web sites for content related to the topic area. This list of sites, reviewed and updated in October 2002, was compiled based on existing knowledge of evidence-based practice Web sites, known guideline developers, and recommendations from the literature. The presence or absence of guidelines was noted for each site searched as well as the date searched. The Web sites at times did not house a guideline, but directed to another Web site or source for guideline retrieval. Guidelines were either downloaded if full versions were available or were ordered by phone/mail.
A Web site search for existing intravenous therapy guidelines was conducted via the search engine "Google", using the search terms identified above. One individual conducted this search, noting the search term results, the Web sites reviewed, date, and a summary of the findings. The search results were further critiqued by a second individual who identified guidelines and literature not previously retrieved.
Additionally, panel members were already in possession of a few of the identified guidelines. In some instances, a guideline was identified by panel members and not found through the previous search strategies. These were guidelines that were developed by local groups or specific professional associations.
The search method described above revealed nine guidelines, and numerous studies related to infusion therapy. The final step in determining whether the clinical practice guideline would be critically appraised was to have two individuals screen the guidelines based on specific inclusion criteria. These criteria were determined by panel consensus:
- Guideline was in English
- Guideline was dated no earlier than 1996
- Guideline was strictly about the topic areas
- Guideline was evidence-based (e.g., contained references, description of evidence, sources of evidence)
- Guideline was available and accessible for retrieval
Seven guidelines were deemed suitable for critical review using the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation" instrument.
2008 Supplement
Review of Existing Guidelines
One individual searched an established list of websites for published guidelines and other relevant content. This list was compiled based on existing knowledge of evidence-based practice websites and recommendations from the literature. Six international guidelines were critically appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE, 2001). From this appraisal, two guidelines were identified to inform the review process and were circulated to all panel members.
Literature Review
Concurrent with the review of existing guidelines, a search for recent literature relevant to the scope of the guideline was conducted with guidance from the Review Chair. The search of electronic databases, including CINAHL, Medline and EMBASE, was conducted by a health sciences librarian. A Master's prepared nurse completed the inclusion/exclusion review, quality appraisal and data extraction of the retrieved studies, and the summary of the literature findings. The comprehensive data tables and reference lists were provided to all panel members.
A summary of the evidence review is provided in the Review Process Flow Chart in the original guideline supplement document.
