ArticleCancers2023
Complications of Central Venous Access Devices Used in Palliative Care Settings for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of educational interventions provided to patients with a central venous catheter and their informal caregivers: a systematic review.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Pooled it
- Supra-pectoralis major implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in emaciated oncology patients: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- 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
- Prevalence of central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer and subgroup analysis using propensity score matching: A nationwide multicenter study in Italy.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Trends in the epidemiology of intravascular device-associated bacteremia among French hematology patients: insights from the SPIADI prospective multicenter study, 2020-2024.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- The First Use of a Midline Catheter in Outpatient Pain Management.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
(1) Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) have been commonly employed during various courses of anticancer treatment. Currently, there are a few types of clinically available CVADs, which are associated with short-term and long-term complications. However, little is known about the complication rates when CVADs are used only in palliative care settings. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the published literature to evaluate the complication rates of CVADs in this clinical setting. (2) Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to identify publications from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and trial registries. Publications reporting the complication rates of PICCs, central lines, and PORTs in palliative settings for terminally ill cancer patients were included, while those on the use of systemic anticancer therapy and peripheral venous catheters were excluded. The outcome measures included overall complication rate, rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and rate of thromboembolism (TE). This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023404489). (3) Results: Five publications with 327 patients were analyzed, including four studies on PICCs and one study on central lines. No studies on PORTs were eligible for analysis. The overall complication rate for PICCs (pooled estimate 7.02%, 95% CI 0.27-19.10) was higher than that for central lines (1.44%, 95% CI 0.30-4.14,
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.