ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of complications between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Modified Ultrasound-Guided Venipuncture Technique for Non-Tunneled PICC Insertion in a Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) Setting: A Technical Report with Real-World Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of single-lumen and double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters in patients undergoing digestive surgery within bundled care contexts.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of this study was to compare the complication rates between reverse-tapered and nontapered peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). In total, 407 patients who had an inpatient clinic-based PICC insertion between September 2019 and November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Seven PICC types were used (4 reverse tapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 75), 5-Fr single-lumen (n = 78), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 62), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 61); 3 nontapered: 4-Fr single-lumen (n = 73), 5-Fr double-lumen (n = 30), and 6-Fr triple-lumen (n = 23)). Complications such as periprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, inadvertent removal, catheter obstruction by thrombosis, infection, and leakage were investigated. The overall complication rate was 27.1%. The complication rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than reverse-tapered PICCs (50.0% vs 16.7%, P < 0.001). The overall periprocedural bleeding rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (27.0% vs 6.2%, P <0.001). The overall inadvertent removal rate was significantly higher for nontapered PICCs than for reverse-tapered PICCs (15.1% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001). There were no other significant differences in complication rates. Nontapered PICCs were associated with higher rates of periprocedural bleeding and inadvertent removal than reverse-tapered PICCs.
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.