Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25896394›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

Closed cannulation of subclavian vein vs open cut-down of cephalic vein for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: protocol for a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.

Ulla Klaiber, Kathrin Grummich, Katrin Jensen, Daniel Saure, Pietro Contin, Felix J Hüttner, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ulla KlaiberDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Ulla.Klaiber@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Kathrin GrummichStudy Center of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Kathrin.Grummich@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Katrin JensenInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 305, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Jensen@imbi.uni-heidelberg.de.
Daniel SaureInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 305, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Saure@imbi.uni-heidelberg.de.
Pietro ContinDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Pietro.Contin@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Felix J HüttnerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Felix.Huettner@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Markus K DienerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Markus.Diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Phillip KnebelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Phillip.Knebel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Society of Surgery · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation is one of the most often performed operations in general surgery (over 100,000/year in Germany). The two main approaches for TIVAP placement are insertion into the cephalic vein through an open cut-down technique (OCD) or closed cannulation technique of the subclavian vein (CC) with Seldinger technique. Both procedures are performed with high success rates and very low complication frequencies. Because of the low incidence of complications, no single interventional trial is able to report a valid comparison of peri- and postoperative complication frequencies between both techniques. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to summarize evidence for peri- and postoperative complication rates in patients undergoing OCD or CC. METHODS/

designA systematic literature search will be conducted in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational clinical studies (OCS), or case series (CS) reporting peri- and/or postoperative complications of at least one implantation technique. A priori defined data will be extracted from included studies, and methodological quality will be assessed. Event rates with their 95% confidence intervals will be derived taking into account the follow-up time per study by patient-months where appropriate. Pooled estimates of event rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be calculated on the base of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation within a random effect model framework. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the procedure with the best benefit/risk ratio for TIVAP implantation. This may have influence on daily practice, and data may be implemented in treatment guidelines. Considering the impact of TIVAP implantation on patients' well being together with its socioeconomic relevance, patients will benefit from evidence-based treatment and health-care costs may also be reduced. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

Indexed as

Vascular Access DevicesCatheterizationHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicProsthesis ImplantationResearch DesignSubclavian VeinSystematic Reviews as TopicVenous Cutdown

Identifiers

PMID25896394
PMCPMC4410572
OpenAlexW2120972922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.