Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32724407›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2020

Comparison of PICC and TIVAP in chemotherapy for patients with thyroid cancer.

Fangmei Qi, Hairong Cheng, Xiying Yuan, Li Zhang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangmei QiDepartment of ENT, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266011, P.R. China.
Hairong ChengDepartment of Nephrology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266011, P.R. China.
Xiying YuanThe Affiliated Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong 266042, P.R. China.
Li ZhangDepartment of Neurology, East Hospital of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266071, P.R. China.
Qingdao Municipal Hospital · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAP) were compared in chemotherapy for patients with thyroid cancer. A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with thyroid cancer who were treated with PICC and TIVAP for chemotherapy in Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2013 to March 2018. Patients in the PICC and TIVAP groups were compared in terms of the success rate, indwelling time, complications, quality of life and nursing satisfaction. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The indwelling time in the TIVAP group was significantly longer than that in the PICC group (P<0.05). The incidence rate of complications in the TIVAP group (0%) was significantly lower than that in the PICC group (14.58%) (P<0.05). The quality of life score in the PICC group was significantly lower than that in the TIVAP group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the nursing satisfaction score between the two groups (P>0.05). In conclusion, as an ideal venous access to chemotherapy for thyroid cancer, TIVAP has longer indwelling time and fewer adverse reactions and improves the quality of life of the patients.

Indexed as

chemotherapycomplicationindwelling timePICCquality of lifethyroid cancerTIVAP

Identifiers

PMID32724407
PMCPMC7377162
OpenAlexW3035103317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.