Observational studyFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-utility analysis of centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) vs. peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the oncology chemotherapy.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- [Clinical Efficacy of A Novel CT-based Localization Method for Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Placement in Lung Cancer via Internal Jugular Vein].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Article
- Research progress and narrative review of totally implantable venous access ports.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Safety and feasibility assessment of implantable chest wall venous access port for patients with acute leukemia.Frontiers in 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
- An infusion port for recurrent massive pericardial effusion: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 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
- Observational
- Peripheral intravenous infusion for children based on computer digital video technology.American journal of translational research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) are two types of intravenous infusion devices that are widely used in clinical practice. PORTs are more expensive to insert than PICCs but have fewer complications. Two cost-utility analyses of PICCs and PORTs in China have been published, but had conflicting findings. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of PICCs and PORTs. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational trial including 404 patients with cancer and a cross-sectional study to calculate cost and complications of a PICC and PORT. Utility was measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). A cost-utility analysis was performed from a healthcare system perspective in China. Results: The average total cost of PICCs and PORTs were ¥ 4,091.7 and ¥ 4,566.8, which yielded 0.46 and 0.475 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a 6-month dwell time, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was ¥ 31,670.9 per QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the base-case results were robust, and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥ 80,976 per QALY (China's per capita GDP in 2021) the probability of a PORT being cost-effective was 96%. Conclusion: PORTs were more cost-effective than PICCs for a 6 and 12-month dwell time. The total cost for a PORT was also less than that of a PICC. PORT is therefore recommended as a medium to long-term intravenous delivery device in clinical practice.
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.