SynthesisActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2021
Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients.
Synthesis in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Preference versus protocol: oncology clinicians' perspectives on central venous access for administration of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- 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
- Case Report: A successful multidisciplinary approach to doxorubicin extravasation from a PICC-port in a patient with breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A Monocentric Analysis of Implantable Ports in Cancer Treatment: Five-Year Efficacy and Safety Evaluation.Cancers · 2024Article
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- A retrospective cohort study of implantable venous access port-related and peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies in China.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of internet multidisciplinary continuity care on the living quality of home-based patients with malignant tumors undergoing PICC catheterization.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Minimal invasive aortic arch repair with suture-mediated closure system.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2023Article
- Article
- Safety of Early Bevacizumab Administration after Central Venous Port Placement for Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimNinety-four thousand gynecological cancer diagnoses are performed each year in the United States. The majority of these tumors require systemic adjuvant therapy. Sustained venous access was overcome by indwelling long-term central venous catheter (CVC). The best choice of which CVC to use is often arbitrary or dependent on physician confidence. This meta-analysis aims to compare PORT and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) outcomes during adjuvant treatment for gynecological cancer.
methodsMeta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (PRISMA)were used to conduct the meta-analysis.
results1320 patients were included, 794 belonging to the PORT group and 526 to the PICC group. Total complication rates were fewer in the PORT group, p = 0.05. CVC malfunction was less frequent in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p <0.01. Finally, thrombotic events were less expressed in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p = 0.02. No difference was found in operative complication, migration, malposition, extravasation, infection, and complication requiring catheter removal.
conclusionsPORT had fewer thrombotic complications and fewer malfunction problems than PICC devices. Unless specific contraindications, PORTs can be preferred for systemic treatment in gynecological cancer patients.
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.