ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2019
[Single-center retrospective analysis of extracorporal photopheresis in clinical practice : Peripheral venous compared to central venous access].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- European dermatology forum - updated guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis 2020 - part 1.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporal photopheresis (ECP) was shown to be effective without severe side effects in the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and graft versus host disease (GvHD). However, only few studies investigated the practical aspects of ECP.
methodsTreatment protocols of 2038 ECP procedures in 52 patients (CTCL, n = 29; GvHD, n = 15; other, n = 8) were evaluated. The patients were treated with the UVAR® XTS™ ECP system (Therakos, Inc. Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA) between 2001 and 2010. All patients started with a peripheral venous access. During the course of treatment 7 patients were treated via a port and 4 via a central venous catheter.
resultsIn all, 1765 (86.6%) treatments were performed with a peripheral venous access; 239 (11.7%) ECPs were done via a port and 34 (1.7%) via a central venous catheter. The peripheral venous access showed a higher flow rate and longer photoactivation time. ECPs via port lead to higher UV-irradiated volumes, longer treatment times and higher differences in systolic blood pressure. The following side effects were observed: being unwell (n = 13), hypo- (n = 13) and hypertension (n = 7), vertigo (n = 4), headache (n = 4), shortness of breath (n = 4), fever (n = 3) and metallic taste (n = 3). Technical complications such as problems with venous access (9.6%) occurred in 385 (18.9%) treatments.
conclusionsPeripheral venous access should be preferred for ECP treatments.
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.