ReviewNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024
Brachial Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and the Risk of Catheter Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Global trends in medical adhesive-related skin injury research from 2013 to 2024: A bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace.Medicine · 2026Article
- Perils of the PICC: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-Associated Complications and Recommendations for Prevention in Clinical Practice-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of the integrated puncture method vs. the conventional puncture method in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter placement for cancer patients.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSituations involving increased workloads and stress (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) underline the need for healthcare professionals to minimize patient complications. In the field of vascular access, tunneling techniques are a possible solution. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (tPICCs) to conventional Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (cPICCs) in terms of bleeding, overall success, procedural time, and late complications.
methodsRandomized controlled trials without language restrictions were searched using PUBMED
resultsThere were no significant differences in overall success and nerve or artery injuries between the two groups (
conclusionsThe tunneling technique for brachial access appears to be safe concerning intra-procedural bleeding, overall success, and procedural time, and it is effective in reducing the risk of late complications associated with catheterization.
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.