Evolution of Scientific Production on Phlebitis Secondary to Vascular Access: A 71-Year Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would kindly like to thank the Editor for the opportunity to review the manuscript above. The topic is current and interesting, however, I think that there are a few issues to be resolved before publication. 

The main results and conclusions of the study need to be clearly expressed in the abstract and conclusion sections. Based on the review of literature, what are the main avenues of research in the future? If there are only a few research centres with consistent publications in the field, does the collaboration really offer the best prospect of future breakthroughs? 

The introduction and discussion sections are too long - especially the introduction section needs to be shorter and more to the point.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language editing is required throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

I would kindly like to thank the Editor for the opportunity to review the manuscript above. The topic is current and interesting, however, I think that there are a few issues to be resolved before publication. The main results and conclusions of the study need to be clearly expressed in the abstract and conclusion sections. Based on the review of literature, what are the main avenues of research in the future? If there are only a few research centres with consistent publications in the field, does the collaboration really offer the best prospect of future breakthroughs? 

Thank you for your contributions. We thought it appropriate to review the abstract and conclusion sections following your suggestions.

Abstract:

Page 1, line 23: These areas included the prevention, risk and associated complications of catheter-associated phlebitis. Other aspects that are a priori relevant such as assessment and treatment were found to be little investigated

Conclusions:

Page 11, line 44: The main research lines are centred on investigating effective prevention strategies, risk and associated complications. Little was found on the treatment of catheter-related phlebitis, with this study offering a very limited vision of this aspect with heparin the only treatment being subjected to research. This reflects the lack of studies and consensus in this regard. For their part, assessment tools and the integration of advanced technology for the early detection of this complication are topics that have still not been tackled in the literature.

Page 11, line 51: Presently, research on this subject is increasing internationally, although a more global approach is required as well as greater collaboration among researchers in different regions of the world. This would enable access to a wider dataset and the cross-validation of findings in diverse clinical environments and populations.

The introduction and discussion sections are too long - especially the introduction section needs to be shorter and more to the point.  

Thank you for your contribution. Regarding the introduction section, we would like to clarify that its length was modified upon the express recommendation of MDPI. However, we have taken your recommendation into account and have reviewed and refined the introduction section.

Page 1, line 43: Complications range from 1.8% to 55.5% associated with venous catheter management and cause safety and comfort problems for the patient.

 Page 2, line 5:It can be classified according to its etiology: 1) mechanical, related to the PCV manufacturing material, inadequate fixation and incorrect handling during its use; 2) chemical, caused by the infused substance; 3) bacterial, when there is microbial colonization due to lack of asepsis or lack of optimization of the access itself; finally 4) post-infusion, which appears between 48 hours to 96 days after extraction.

 In relation to the discussion, we have created two specific sections to facilitate its understanding and we have eliminated some information that we consider not relevant upon rereading. Thank you for your contribution.

Page 9,: The findings of the present study present an overall view of the scientific production on PVC-related phlebitis. With this in mind and considering the secondary aims of the study, the discussion is divided into two subsections: 1) Bibliometric elements of the scientific production; and 2) Current status and research lines in PVC-related phlebitis.

Page 9, line 30: Thus providing personalized attention, having a collaborative attitude among all members of the healthcare team, care based on scientific evidence, culturally sensitive and appropriate to the person's age and cognition.

 Page 10, line 37: Even if the study by Tatsuno et al, 2019 concludes that the mortality associated with bloodstream infections in PVCs versus central venous catheters (CVCs) does not differ. Therefore, PVCs are concluded to be no safer and the same safety precautions must be used in both types, and unnecessary PVCs must be avoided.

 Page 11, line 28: And regarding nursing care and replacement/routine (Cluster 4), the literature shows the complications or effects of new venipunctures such as economic cost, risk of patient stress, risk of peripheral vascular trauma, and nursing time dedicated to the procedure. Some studies do not show a direct benefit of routine substitutions every 72 or 96 hours, but do rather expose the patient to the complications previously detailed. Although, some authors detail that the substitution of catheters is clinically safe

English language editing is required throughout the manuscript.

We apologize; a translator has reviewed the entire document.

Thanks again for all your contributions, and we hope to have resolved them to your satisfaction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Manuscript has a good title. English language has good quality. Figures and tables have acceptable quality. There are some modifications that are essential to be exerted in the manuscript.

1. Line page 5

Why you have mentioned "without selt citation" in the sentence "As for the number of citations included in the bibliometry ..."

2. About figures of manuscript

+ Please make the "key" of each figure more clear, obvious and bigger so that it can be easily readable

+ Some figures have two explainatiob, one in the top of them and the other in the title of figure. Please reform them.

3. About Table 1

Why you have not inserted H-index of each journal in this table?

4. About page 8, section "3.4. Keywords"

Why you have chosen keywords with a minimum of 20 occurrences for your bibliometric analysis by VOSviewer software?

5. It is highly suggested that the authors categorize their finding based on their importance and after that, discuss about them one by one

6. Why you have not mentioned about future insights, limittations and obstacles in performing various surveys about phlebitis?

7. Please check and adjust the "Reference list" based on the regulations of reference list of journal. (Titles, doi, the name of journal and ... )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Manuscript has a good title. English language has good quality. Figures and tables have acceptable quality. There are some modifications that are essential to be exerted in the manuscript.

Thank you for your comments. We will now respond to your contributions.

1. Line page 5

Why you have mentioned "without selt citation" in the sentence "As for the number of citations included in the bibliometry ..."

Thank you very much for your contribution. We will now detail the reason that led us to consider the "without self citation". The research team considered that by evaluating the influence and impact of scientific production in the scientific community, a more objective perspective was ensured, with a more rigorous and reliable approach to the evaluation. Likewise, we believe that the inclusion of self-citations in bibliometrics raises ethical and transparency challenges.

Page 5, line 3: The analysis of citations excluding self-citations ensures a more objective perspective that better reflects the scientific production.

2. About figures of manuscript

+ Please make the "key" of each figure more clear, obvious and bigger so that it can be easily readable

Thanks again for your recommendation. We have made the changes you suggested.

+ Some figures have two explainatiob, one in the top of them and the other in the title of figure. Please reform them.

Thanks for your comment. We have made the necessary changes to the figures.

3. About Table 1

Why you have not inserted H-index of each journal in this table?

We appreciate your valuable observation and suggestion regarding the H-index. We recognize that this information is relevant and can significantly contribute to the research. We have included it in the table.

4. About page 8, section "3.4. Keywords"

Why you have chosen keywords with a minimum of 20 occurrences for your bibliometric analysis by VOSviewer software?

Thank you for your question. Setting a minimum threshold of 20 occurrences allows us to focus on those keywords that are most relevant and meaningful within the data set. Also, we seek to identify the concepts that have been discussed in the literature, to provide a more accurate picture of the most prominent themes and trends over time.

Page 7, line 17: This strategy allows identification of the most relevant and significant terms in the topic being explored.

5. It is highly suggested that the authors categorize their finding based on their importance and after that, discuss about them one by one

Thank you for your contribution, it has been of great help to us. We have followed your recommendation and classified the findings and reshaped the discussion. Also, we have created two specific sections to facilitate its understanding and we have eliminated some information that we consider not relevant upon rereading.

Page 9: The findings of the present study present an overall view of the scientific production on PVC-related phlebitis. With this in mind and considering the secondary aims of the study, the discussion is divided into two subsections: 1) Bibliometric elements of the scientific production; and 2) Current status and research lines in PVC-related phlebitis.

6. Why you have not mentioned about future insights, limittations and obstacles in performing various surveys about phlebitis?

Thank you for your comment, although we find your contribution a little confusing. So we apologize if we have not interpreted your proposal correctly. The Limitations section refers to the possible biases of this particular study (page 11). In the Relevance to clinical practice section, this limitation already appears explicitly as a dimension to be developed (page 12). We understand that you are referring to limited knowledge about the evaluation of phlebitis, which is why we incorporated it more specifically in Conclusions.

Page 11, line 44: The main research lines are centred on investigating effective prevention strategies, risk and associated complications. Little was found on the treatment of catheter-related phlebitis, with this study offering a very limited vision of this aspect with heparin the only treatment being subjected to research. This reflects the lack of studies and consensus in this regard. For their part, assessment tools and the integration of advanced technology for the early detection of this complication are topics that have still not been tackled in the literature.

7. Please check and adjust the "Reference list" based on the regulations of reference list of journal. (Titles, doi, the name of journal and ... )

We apologize; we have reviewed the Reference list.

Thanks again for all your contributions, and we hope to have resolved them to your satisfaction.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review is intereting about an important topic for the nurses. I think the only aspect that I would deepen is the therapy of the phlebitis maybe with a table or a scheme

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Review is intereting about an important topic for the nurses. I think the only aspect that I would deepen is the therapy of the phlebitis maybe with a table or a scheme

Thank you for your comment. We have considered you recommendation and understand the importance of delving deeper into the therapy of phlebitis, which is why we have placed more emphasis on the topic in the discussion section, presenting different products, though besides heparine, they do not emerge in this study.

Page 10, line 53: In relation to the treatment of phlebitis, products can be classified into 3 types: 1) Physical measures (cold or heat applied topically on the skin); 2) Phytotherapeutic treatments (sesame oil, phellodendron, chamomile, calendula, aloe vera, quercetin 2%, ichthammol glycerine, alcohol compress); and 3) Pharmacological treatments (magnesium sulphate, glycerine, heparinoid)

On the other hand, we believe that the inclusion of a table or scheme on the treatment of phlebitis could divert attention from the central topic, overload the article and make it difficult for readers who seek an overview of the topic of phlebitis and vascular access. Additionally, it should be noted that specific treatments do not emerge in the results, which is why we believe that your interesting comment merits a specific bibliometric of the treatment of phlebitis and vascular access.

Minor revisions English language

We apologize; a translator has reviewed the entire document.

Thanks again for all your contributions, and we hope to have resolved them to your satisfaction.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my suggestions are considered.