ArticleOncology letters2017
Chest wall-parallel vs. conventional subclavian venous catheterization in cancer chemotherapy: A comparison of complication rates.
Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of complications such as pneumothorax and hematoma between the chest wall-parallel and conventional subclavian venous catheterization in cancer chemotherapy was compared. From December 2011 to March 2016, a total of 314 patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer in the Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital were assigned to either the Chest Wall-parallel (n=155) or the conventional subclavian venous catheterization group (n=159) in order to observe the primary success rate for catheterization and to assess the incidence of complications such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, hematoma, and internal jugular venous injury. The primary success rates for catheterization were not significantly different between the conventional and chest wall-parallel subclavian venous catheterization groups (94.3% vs. 96.8%, P>0.05), with a total catheterization success rate of 100% in both groups. However, the incidence of pneumothorax was significantly different between the groups (6.29% in conventional vs. 0% in chest wall-parallel subclavian venous catheterization group, P<0.05). Therefore, compared to conventional subclavian venous catheterization, the chest wall-parallel approach could reduce the risk of or even totally prevent pneumothorax and other venipunctures and is, thus, a relatively safe and effective technique that could have wide applications in clinical settings.
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.