ArticleThe journal of vascular access2024
A retrospective study of subcutaneous anchor securement systems in oncology patients.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 2024. 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.
- Compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device versus suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- A comprehensive review of catheter dislodgement: prevalence, clinical impact, and innovations in securement devices.npj biomedical innovations · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaintaining optimal central venous catheter tip position requires reliable catheter securement. A vital decision about the choice of engineered securement device is often made by what is conveniently available in the insertion kit or default clinical routine. The importance of continuous securement for oncology patients prompted the need for an evaluation of securement options currently available. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of two engineered securement devices to assist the oncology patient in reaching the end of their catheter need.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to assess patients' ability to finish their therapy with one peripherally inserted central catheter. Implant and explant data for adult oncology patients was evaluated spanning 2007-2021. All patients received a PICC with either an adhesive securement device or a subcutaneous anchor securement system.
resultsPartial or complete dislodgement causing the unplanned removal of the PICC occurred at 12% for ASD and 0.4% for SASS (
conclusionWith over 9200 patients and more than a million catheter days, the results of this retrospective study demonstrate the SASS's superiority in assisting the patient to reach the end of need with a single PICC.
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.