Evidence Hub

Evaluating antibiotic medications delivered through elastomeric devices in a paediatric population: a systematic review

Shipman L, Sankaranarayanan V, Agarwal A, Chacko J, Charras A, Swain V, Sposito F, Aragon O et al.

Archives of disease in childhood, 2026

567 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Elastomeric devices (EDs) allow infusion of antibiotic via an intravenous catheter over 24 hours, supporting outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. We conducted a systematic review of these devices in a paediatric population.

Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used to review studies assessing antibiotic delivery through EDs in a paediatric population (0-21 years). Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, The Cochrane Clinical Trials Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched.

Results: After deduplication, 1789 titles and abstracts were screened; 45 underwent full-text review and nine were suitable for qualitative synthesis. 567 patients were treated in 657 episodes. 14 different antibiotics and aciclovir were delivered through EDs, primarily 24-hour infusions. Median treatment duration was 10 to 15 days. A variety of infections were treated (mostly infective exacerbations of cystic fibrosis (CF), bone/joint infection). Efficacy data were limited; two studies demonstrated non-inferiority of antibiotic therapy via ED for CF patients compared with conventional infusion pumps. In another study, only two patients (6%) experienced treatment failure. Few adverse events were reported: 1 of 34 patients (3%) experienced ED failure due to misplacement of the central line; one case of antibiotic crystallisation.

Conclusion: EDs have been used for a range…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 567 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free