ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2023
Impact of central venous port implantation method and access choice on outcomes.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06766656 (Comparison of Transverse and Longitudinal Incisions for Venous Access Port Placement), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparison of Transverse and Longitudinal Incisions for Venous Access Port Placement
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative safety outcomes of three venous access routes for totally implantable venous access port placement and exploratory assessment of pre-removal catheter-related thrombosis in breast cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Tunnelless totally implantable venous access device implantation via ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture: A retrospective analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Correlation between psychological, family social support, and home nursing quality for an implanted venous access port.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing, there is still no "gold standard" for the implantation technique.
aimTo identify the implantation technique that should be favored.
methodsTwo hundred central venous port-implanted patients in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were assigned into two groups according to the access method. The first group comprised patients whose jugular veins were used, and the second group comprised patients whose subclavian veins were used. Groups were evaluated regarding age, sex, application side, primary diagnosis, active follow-up period in the hospital, chemotherapy agents administered, number of complications, and the Clavien-Dindo severity score. The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Mann-Whitney
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, side, number of chemotherapy drugs, and duration of port usage (
conclusionOur results robustly confirm that the jugular vein route is safer than the subclavian vein approach for central venous port implantation.
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.