ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2022
Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of PICC-related thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Preference versus protocol: oncology clinicians' perspectives on central venous access for administration of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility assessment of implantable chest wall venous access port for patients with acute leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
- 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
- Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.European journal of haematology · 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
21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBoth peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are commonly used for the delivery of immunochemotherapy. We compared the safety of the two types of devices in a homogeneous and monocentric population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who were treated with first-line immunochemotherapy by evaluating the numbers of catheter-related venous thromboses (VTs) and infections that occurred in the six months after implantation according to the type of device.
methodsUsing a propensity score, the adjusted relative risk (ARR) between the type of catheter and the occurrence of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) of interest was retrospectively determined.
results479 patients were enrolled (266 PORTs/213 PICCs), and 26 VTs (5.4%) and 30 infections (6.3%) were identified in the period following PICC/PORT implantation. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) according to the type of device was 2.6 (95% CI =1.3-5.9, p = .0075). This risk increase associated with the PICC device was significant for both infections (ARR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3-10.9) and thrombosis (ARR = 4; 95% CI = 1.5-11.6).
conclusionOur study supports the preferential use of PORTs for the first line of treatment for DLBCL 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.