Trial reportTrials2020
A comparison of hydrophobic polyurethane and polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter: results from a feasibility randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripherally inserted central catheter design and material for reducing catheter failure and complications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing a hydrophobic polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) with a standard polyurethane PICC.
methodsThis pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between May 2017 and February 2018. Adult participants (n = 111) were assigned to hydrophobic polyurethane PICC with proximal valve (intervention) or a polyurethane PICC with external clamp (standard care). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were central line-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, occlusion, thrombosis, fracture and dislodgement, phlebitis, local or systemic allergic reaction, and PICC dwell time.
resultsAll feasibility outcomes were achieved, apart from eligibility criteria. In total, 338 patients were screened, 138 were eligible (41%), and of these 111 were randomised (80%). Patients received the allocated PICC in 106 (95%) insertions. No patients withdrew from the study and there was no missing data. PICC failure was 24% (13/55) in the intervention group and 22% (12/55) in the standard care group (p = 0.820). PICC failure per 1000 PICC days was 16.3 in the intervention group and 18.4 in the control group (p = 0.755). The average dwell time was 12 days in the intervention and 8 days in the control group.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of an efficacy trial of PICC materials in an adult population, once adjustments were made to include not only in-patients, but also patients being discharged to the Hospital in the Home service.
trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001578493 . Prospectively registered on 16 November 2016. The trial protocol was published a priori (Kleidon et al., Vasc Access 3:15-21, 2017).
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.