ArticlePatient preference and adherence2017
Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The risk of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Pooled it
- [The role of central vascular access in the management of patients receiving chemotherapy for non-hematological malignant tumors: PICC line versus implantable Ports].The Pan African medical journal · 2026Trial
- Supra-pectoralis major implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in emaciated oncology patients: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Barriers to continuity of outpatient infusion-port maintenance among patients with cancer: a single-center cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Factors associated with skin exposure of central venous ports in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2025Observational
- Review
- Clinical efficacy and safety of a new single-incision axillary vein puncture technique for totally implantable venous access ports.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in different central venous access devices: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Review
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Is ultrasound guidance necessary to avoid complications in the implantation of venous access ports?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2024Article
- Effect of Two Different Catheter Dressings on Pain, Comfort, and Satisfaction in Chemotherapy Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2024Article
- Development and Preliminary Validation of the Chinese Version of the Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Self-Management Behavior Scale (CPTSMBS) for Patients with Cancer.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- A retrospective cohort study of implantable venous access port-related and peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies in China.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Peripherally inserted central catheters can be an alternative to tunneled central venous catheters in chemotherapy for hematological and oncological pediatric patients.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Article
- Establishment and implementation of a nurse-led interdisciplinary management strategy for central line maintenance: A single-center experience.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Article
- Cost-utility analysis of different venous access devices in breast cancer patients: a decision-based analysis model.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Risk factors for totally implantable access ports-associated thrombosis in pediatric oncology patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs).
methodsA double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal.
resultsThere was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients' satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups.
conclusionAlthough port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients' satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.
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.