SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2024
Complications of tunneled and non-tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Peripherally inserted central catheter performance in oncology patients: A retrospective analysis in an outpatient setting.The journal of vascular access · 2026Article
- Catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters: a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) have potential to reduce complications compared to non-tunneled PICC in previous studies. Which is better is debatable. Thus, the aim to compare the effect of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library database, and CNKI were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was calculated to assess the complications of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: A total of 12 articles were retrieved. Meta-analysis showed that tunneled PICC significantly decreased the risk of wound oozing (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.41), infection risk (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.85), thrombosis risk (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44), phlebitis risk (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13-0.40), and catheter dislodgement risk (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50) compared to non-tunneled PICC. Conclusions: The subcutaneous tunneling technology has advantages over normal technique in decreasing PICC-related complications for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42024522862).
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.