SynthesisNursing open2022
The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Nursing open · 2022Pooled it
- Management of Upper Extremity DVT.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Prevalence and factors associated with high-risk thrombophilia: a single-center cross-sectional study of 3550 patients at a tertiary Thrombosis Centre in Switzerland.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Article
- Thrombosis and infections associated with PICC in onco-hematological patients, what is their relevance?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Risk factors analysis and the establishment of nomogram prediction model for PICC-related venous thrombosis in patients with lymphoma: a double-center cohort-based case-control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Article
- Clinical study of complications of a peripherally inserted central catheter in cancer patients.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Thrombophilia Impact on Treatment Decisions, Subsequent Venous or Arterial Thrombosis and Pregnancy-Related Morbidity: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The research status of central venous catheterization-associated thrombosis: a bibliometrics analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
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 1 institution 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 venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial.
objectiveTo compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsThe Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched from inception to January 2020. All studies comparing the risk of VTE 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. Any different opinion was resolved through third-party consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of VTE risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3.
resultsA total of 86 studies were identified. Twelve studies were recruited, involving 40,871 patients. The prevalence of VTE with MCs and PICCs was 3.97% (310/7806) and 2.29% (758/33065), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.33-1.76, p < .00001). Subgroup analyses by age showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs in the adult group (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.38-2.22, p < .00001), and higher than that with PICCs in the other subgroups (RR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.19-1.69, p = .0001). Subgroup analyses by nation showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.30-1.73, p < .00001) in US subgroup and higher than that with PICCs (RR=2.87, 95% CI: 1.24-6.65, p = .01) in the other nations. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are robust and all studies have no significant publication bias.
conclusionsThis study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs. MCs are associated with a higher risk of VTE than PICCs in all patients and adults. The findings of this study have several important implications for future practice. However, the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs in children is unclear.
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.