Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31970514›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in outpatient and inpatient oncological treatment.

Dorothea Mielke, Andrea Wittig, Ulf Teichgräber

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Catheter-related complications in AML remission induction chemotherapy: a retrospective comparison of PICCs and CICCs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dorothea MielkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Bachstr.18, 07743 Jena, Germany and SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera GmbH Straße des Friedens 122, 07548, Gera, Germany.
Andrea WittigDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Bachstr.18, 07743, Jena, Germany.
Ulf TeichgräberInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. ulf.teichgraeber@med.uni-jena.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4048-3938
Jena University Hospital · DESRH Wald-Klinikum Gera · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSo far there is little evidence on peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in radiation oncology patients maintaining the access during the periods of ambulatory and hospital treatment.

methodsA total of 522 PICC placements in 484 patients were performed between 11/2011 and 07/2016 at the Department of Radiation Oncology and analysed retrospectively for complications and treatment- and patient-related factors during ambulatory and hospital inpatient use. On initial hospitalization, all patients received a multimodal radio-oncological treatment consisting of radiation and intravenous therapy administered via the PICC.

resultsA total of 18,292 catheter days were documented. Median follow-up from catheter insertion to their removal was 37 days (1-97). The overall complication rate was 4.1 per 1000 catheter days (n = 75, 14.4%). Complications were similar between the cohort of outpatient 3.6 per 1000 catheter days and the cohort of inpatient 4.8 per 1000 catheter days (OR 0.976; 95% CI [0.598; 1.619]; p = 0.924). Severe bloodstream infections occurred at a rate of 0.60 per 1000 catheter days (n = 11, 2.1%), deep vein thrombosis at a rate of 0.82 per 1.000 catheter days (n = 15, 2.9%) and local inflammation at a rate of 1.26 per 1.000 catheter days (n = 23, 4.4%). Only immunotherapy could be identified as an independent risk factor for complications (OR 5.6; 95% CI [2.4; 13.1]; p < 0.001).

conclusionUsing PICC in outpatients is not associated with an elevated risk of complications. Particular attention should be payed to early identification of PICC associated bloodstream infections. Immunotherapy is an independent risk factor for local skin complication.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCatheterization, Central VenousCatheterization, PeripheralCentral Venous CathetersFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOutpatientsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsComplicationsOutpatient and inpatientPICCRadio-oncology

Identifiers

PMID31970514
PMCPMC7447660
OpenAlexW3001637432

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.