Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34343193›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Baiying Liu, Zhiwei Wu, Changwei Lin, Liang Li, Xuechun Kuang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06375850 (Effects of Topical Sesame Oil in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-associated Peripheral Venous Catheter Phlebitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT06375850 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Topical Sesame Oil in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-associated Peripheral Venous Catheter Phlebitis: Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitario Marqués de ValdecillaRan2022 to 2025Enrolled300ConditionsPhlebitisArmsSesame oil, Saline solution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Baiying LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Third XiangYa Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7605-0886
Zhiwei WuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Third XiangYa Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Changwei LinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Third XiangYa Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Liang LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Third XiangYa Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xuechun KuangDepartment of Geratic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.

methodsA systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsThirteen studies were included in this final meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that compared with PICC, TIVAP was associated with a higher first-puncture success rate (OR:2.028, 95%CI:1.25-3.289, P<0.05), a lower accidental removal rate (OR:0.447, 95%CI:0.225-0.889, P<0.05) and lower complication rates, including infection (OR:0.570, 95%CI: 0.383-0.850, P<0.05), occlusion (OR:0.172, 95%CI:0.092-0.324, P<0.05), malposition (OR:0.279, 95%CI:0.128-0.608, P<0.05), thrombosis (OR:0.191, 95%CI, 0.111-0.329, P<0.05), phlebitis (OR:0.102, 95%CI, 0.038-0.273, P<0.05), allergy (OR:0.155, 95%CI:0.035-0.696, P<0.05). However, no difference was found in catheter life span (P>0.05) and extravasation (P>0.05). Moreover, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use (weighted mean difference:3.132, 95%CI:2.434-3.83, P<0.05), but is much similar in 12 months use (P>0.05).

conclusionFor the patients with non-hematological malignancies, TIVAP was superior to PICC in the data related to placement and the incidence of complications. Meanwhile, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use, but it is much similar in twelve-month use.

Indexed as

Catheterization, Central VenousCatheterization, PeripheralCatheter-Related InfectionsHumansIncidenceNeoplasmsPhlebitisVenous Thrombosis

Identifiers

PMID34343193
PMCPMC8330915
OpenAlexW3192521026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.