ArticleHospital pediatrics2024
Inappropriate Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Pediatrics: A Multisite Study.
Article in Hospital pediatrics, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Midline and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized Feasibility Trial.Hospital pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Guides, algorithms and other support tools to improve neonatal and pediatric venous access care: A scoping review.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Standardizing feeding strategies for preterm infants born greater than 1500 grams.Pediatric research · 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to describe how the current practice of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use in hospitalized children aligns with the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (miniMAGIC) in Children recommendations, explore variation across sites, and describe the population of children who do not receive appropriate PICCs.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted at 4 children's hospitals in the United States. Children with PICCs placed January 2019 to December 2021 were included. Patients in the NICU were excluded. PICCs were categorized using the miniMAGIC in Children classification as inappropriate, uncertain appropriateness and appropriate.
resultsOf the 6051 PICCs identified, 9% (n = 550) were categorized as inappropriate, 9% (n = 550) as uncertain appropriateness, and 82% (n = 4951) as appropriate. The number of PICCs trended down over time, but up to 20% of PICCs each year were not appropriate, with significant variation between sites. Within inappropriate or uncertain appropriateness PICCs (n = 1100 PICC in 1079 children), median (interquartile range) patient age was 4 (0-11) years, 54% were male, and the main reason for PICC placement was prolonged antibiotic course (56%, n = 611). The most common admitting services requesting the inappropriate/uncertain appropriateness PICCs were critical care 24%, general pediatrics 22%, and pulmonary 20%. Complications resulting in PICC removal were identified in 6% (n = 70) of inappropriate/uncertain PICCs. The most common complications were dislodgement (3%) and occlusion (2%), with infection and thrombosis rates of 1% (n = 10 and n = 13, respectively).
conclusionsAlthough the majority of PICCs met appropriateness criteria, a substantial proportion of PICCs were deemed inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness, illustrating an opportunity for quality improvement.
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.