SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and effectiveness of tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters versus conventional PICC in adult cancer patients.European radiology · 2024Trial
- Safety and Cost Evaluation of Modified Medium-Length Catheters in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of nursing care qualityTrial
- Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a comparative cross-sectional study of CICC ports and PICC-ports.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility assessment of implantable chest wall venous access port for patients with acute leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Barriers to continuity of outpatient infusion-port maintenance among patients with cancer: a single-center cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Indian Expert Consensus on the Selection of Vascular Access Devices in Oncology Patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of Complications Related to Chemoport and Peripheral Line Among Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy in Teaching Hospitals.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and proactive practices regarding PICC in gastrointestinal cancer: a mediation analysis of a patient empowerment attempt.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Case Report: Successful DSA-guided removal of a fractured PICC catheter from the pulmonary artery in a patient with lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Catheter-Related Thrombosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A Monocentric Analysis of Implantable Ports in Cancer Treatment: Five-Year Efficacy and Safety Evaluation.Cancers · 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
- Insertion of a totally implantable vascular access device in a patient with dextrocardia and colon cancer: a case report.The Journal of international medical 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) were compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as the administration of chemotherapy regarding different clinical effects and adverse effects. Which is better is debatable. Hence, the current study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of these two optimal vascular access strategies. Methods: The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library updated in May 2023. Studies on the differences in complication rates in patients with cancer using either PICC or PORT for chemotherapy were included. Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 22 articles were retrieved. The results suggested that PORT has a superior safety profile, with lower incidences of overall adverse effects (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.56-4.72 P=0.0004), catheter-related thrombosis (OR=2.84, 95% CI=1.97-4.11, P<0.00001), and allergic reactions (OR=6.26, 95% CI=1.86-21.09, P=0.003) than typically expected with PICC. Moreover, PICC was non-inferior to the PORT group with respect to DVT (OR=2.00, 95% CI=0.86-4.65, P=0.11) and infection (OR=1.55, 95% CI=0.75-3.22, P=0.24). Conclusion: PORT achieved safety benefits compared with chemotherapy through PICC. Therefore, PORT is regarded as safe and effective vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy. When considering economic factors and some key elements, more high-quality research would help verify these clinical benefits. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identififier CRD42023421690.
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.