ArticlePloS one2023
Development and validation of an updated PICC length prediction formula based on anteroposterior chest radiographs for the ultrasound-guided bedside placement.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Equation to Estimate PICC Catheter Length in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Real-world validation of a length prediction formula for bedside PICC placement: A single-center retrospective observational study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- An acceptable predictive formula using pre-procedural chest radiograph for bedside insertion of peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC).Acta radiologica open · 2025Article
- Artificial snare technique for transfemoral repositioning of malpositioned central venous port catheter.CVIR endovascular · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement is sometimes required when the patient's intrahospital transport is restricted, and the ideal catheter length prediction is needed. This study aimed to develop an updated formula that predicts the optimal length of a PICC based on anteroposterior chest radiographs (AP-CXRs). This retrospective study collected PICC procedure data as the training and validation sets in three hospitals, including cubital crease-puncture point distance (CP), the actual PICC length (aCL), and the approach side. Horizontal and vertical measurement variables were set on the AP-CXRs. Two dependent variables were ipsilateral upper arm length (AL) and ideal truncal catheter length (iTCL). Simple and multiple regression analyses were used for formula development, and it was applied to the test set to evaluate the length prediction performance. The study included 309 patients in the training and validation sets and 91 intensive care patients in the test set. The final derived formula was: (AL + iTCL = CP + estimated PICC length, cm) = 19.831 - 0.062 × (contralateral clavicle length, cm) + 0.255 × (2nd ribs horizontal distance, cm) + 0.720 × (humero-vertebral distance, cm) + 0.761 × (thoraco-carinal distance, cm) + 1.024 × (the vertical distance of two vertebral body units, cm). (If approaching from the left, add 2.843cm, and if female, subtract 0.821cm.) In the test set, there was no case of length prediction failure. Moreover, the catheter tip position was evaluated as optimal in 82 cases (90.1%). This study's results suggest an updated formula to predict the ideal PICC length using only AP-CXRs for bedside placement.
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.