SynthesisNursing open2021
Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative safety and effectiveness of midline catheters vs. peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Association between Non-nutritive sucking habits and Anterior open bite: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta-analysis.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- A Meta-Analysis of a Cohort Study on the Association between Sleep Duration and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of diabetes research · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Biochemical indicators of inflammatory response in leukemia patients with picc-associated phlebitis: Evaluation of basic fibroblast growth factor combined with light therapy.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2026Article
- Perils of the PICC: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-Associated Complications and Recommendations for Prevention in Clinical Practice-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in different central venous access devices: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of indwelling time and complications of mid-line catheters in different punctured veins of neonates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Effects of dietary habits and catheterization type on breast cancer-related lymphedema: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparing Complication Rates of Midline Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Making a difference? A retrospective review of peripherally inserted central catheters: A single-center experience in Colombia.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- Patterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil: a multicentre study of 12 725 catheters.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), but the prevalence associated with each is not clear.
objectiveTo compare the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs with a meta-analysis.
methodsThe Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched. All studies comparing the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. A fixed effects model was used to generate estimates of CRBSI risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs. Publication bias was evaluated, and meta-analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3.
resultsA total of 167 studies were identified. Ten studies were collected, involving 33,322 patients. The prevalence of CRBSI with MCs and PICCs was 0.58% (40/6,900) and 0.48% (127/26,422), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between MCs and PICCs (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.17, p = .22). While the result showed that the prevalence of CRBSI with MCs was lower than that with PICCs (RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.92, p = .02) after poor-quality studies were removed. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are fair in overall studies and non-poor-quality studies. All studies have no significant publication bias.
conclusionsThis study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs and provides evidence for the selection of appropriate vascular access devices for intravenous infusion therapy in nursing. The prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between them.
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.