ArticlePloS one2022
Validation of the PICC length prediction formula based on anteroposterior chest radiographs for bedside ultrasound-guided placement.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world validation of a length prediction formula for bedside PICC placement: A single-center retrospective observational study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- An acceptable predictive formula using pre-procedural chest radiograph for bedside insertion of peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC).Acta radiologica open · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- A nurse-inserted peripherally inserted central catheter program in general pediatrics: a single-center experience.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to validate the accuracy of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) length prediction formula using only anteroposterior chest radiographs (AP-CXR) and the technical feasibility of bedside ultrasound-guided PICC placement. This study included 156 Asian adult patients who underwent bedside PICC placement at three hospitals from September 2021 to March 2022. The shortest straight-line distance from the cubital crease to the puncture point (CP) was measured first. Using the formula of a previous study, the CP + estimated PICC length (eCL) was calculated with the parameters measured on AP-CXR. The formula was as follows: 19.409 + 0.424 × (MHTD, maximal horizontal thoracic diameter) + 0.287 × (CL, clavicle length) + 0.203 × (DTV, distance of thoracic vertebrae) + (2VBUs, two vertebral body units below the carina inferior border) (if from the left, 3.063cm was added; if female, 0.997cm was subtracted). Catheters were pretrimmed according to calculated eCL prior to the procedure. Technical success was evaluated, and the validation success of catheter length prediction was classified according to the catheter tip position as follows: optimal position or suboptimal position. Technical success was achieved in 153 cases (98.1%). Evaluation of validation success revealed that the position was "optimal" in 108 cases (70.6%) and "suboptimal" in 45 cases (29.4%). There was no validation failure. There was no case where the catheter was inserted too deep as to wedge into the right atrial wall. In conclusion, the PICC could be positioned accurately using the formula based on only AP-CXR. Furthermore, this bedside procedure was technically feasible.
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.