ArticleBMJ open2024
Central venous catheter insertion profile and complications among neonates in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and outcomes of central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of two securement methods on peripherally inserted central catheter stability and skin integrity in very low birth weight infants: a retrospective study.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Insertion technologies for neonatal venous access: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
- Epicutaneo-caval catheter occlusion in neonates without heparin infusion during parenteral nutrition: A descriptive cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
- Primary malposition of peripherally inserted central catheter in the inferior vena cava among neonates: a case series.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- A predictive model for catheter-related bloodstream infection in neonates with peripherally inserted central catheter.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare complications in neonates who had umbilical venous catheter (UVC) versus peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), percentage of non-elective removal of central catheters, and to compare complications of PICC in the upper limb compared with the lower limb.
designA prospective cross-sectional cohort study.
settingNeonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Prince Sultan Military Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
participantsAll infants who are admitted to the unit requiring central catheter insertion were included in the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Complications of central catheters in infants admitted to the NICU.
resultsA total of 415 central catheters were involved in this study (206 UVCs and 209 PICCs (85 in the lower limb, 99 in the upper limb and 25 in the head and neck). The median birth weight of the neonates was 1470 grams (1000-2215). Low birth weight was the most common reason for central catheter insertion, which accounted for 59.8%. Neonatologists were the main insertor for the majority of the cases. The median dwell days for the study sample were 11.00 (7.00-16.50) days. Complications were more common across PICC cases compared with UVC cases (p=0.001). There was non-elective removal of PICC (32.1%) compared with UVC (22.8%) (p=0.035). Phlebitis, occlusion, local infiltrate and leakage were more common in PICC compared with UVC (p<0.05). However, malposition was more commonly associated with the use of UVC (mainly to the liver) (p<0.01). Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rate in 1000.00 dwell days was higher in the upper limb 4.6 compared with the lower limb 2.72 but was not statistically significant (p=0.63), and there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of other complications between the upper limb and the lower limb (p>0.05).
conclusionClose monitoring during extended dwell times is crucial. Our findings underscore the importance of raising awareness of CLABSI risk factors and adhering to best practices for central catheter maintenance. Healthcare professionals should be vigilant about the differences in complication rates between PICC and UVC, tailoring their approach accordingly.
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.