Trial reportBMJ open2017
Peripherally InSerted CEntral catheter dressing and securement in patients with cancer: the PISCES trial. Protocol for a 2x2 factorial, superiority randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of EQ5D-5L and AHPEQS for measuring outcomes and experiences of patients with peripherally inserted central catheters: a secondary analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Effects of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) Catheterization Nursing on Bloodstream Infection in Peripheral Central Venous Catheters in Lung Cancer: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Preventing peripheral intravenous catheter failure by reducing mechanical irritation.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- PICC Maintenance Challenges Among Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- Guidance for protocol content and reporting of factorial randomised trials: explanation and elaboration of the CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 extensions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Development and Preliminary Validation of a Central Venous Access Device-Associated Skin Impairment Classification Tool Using Modified Delphi and Clinimetric Methods.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Clinical study of complications of a peripherally inserted central catheter in cancer patients.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAround 30% of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) fail from vascular, infectious or mechanical complications. Patients with cancer are at highest risk, and this increases morbidity, mortality and costs. Effective PICC dressing and securement may prevent PICC failure; however, no large randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared alternative approaches. We designed this RCT to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of dressing and securements to prevent PICC failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pragmatic, multicentre, 2×2 factorial, superiority RCT of (1) dressings (chlorhexidine gluconate disc (CHG) vs no disc) and (2) securements (integrated securement dressing (ISD) vs securement device (SED)). A qualitative evaluation using a knowledge translation framework is included. Recruitment of 1240 patients will occur over 3 years with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised service. For the dressing hypothesis, we hypothesise CHG discs will reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI) compared with no CHG disc. For the securement hypothesis, we hypothesise that ISD will reduce composite PICC failure (infection (CABSI/local infection), occlusion, dislodgement or thrombosis), compared with SED. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: types of PICC failure; safety; costs; dressing/securement failure; dwell time; microbial colonisation; reversible PICC complications and consumer acceptability. Relative incidence rates of CABSI and PICC failure/100 devices and/1000 PICC days (with 95% CIs) will summarise treatment impact. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (and log rank Mantel-Haenszel test) will compare outcomes over time. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques; p values <0.05 will be considered to be statistically significant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/15/QRCH/241) and Griffith University (Ref. No. 2016/063). Results will be published.
trial registrationTrial registration number is: ACTRN12616000315415.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.