ArticleHeliyon2024
A simple calculation formula for the insertion depth of catheter of the central venous access port in Chinese patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Neural Network-Based Risk Prediction of Glioblastoma Multiforme Recurrence.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The catheter tip placed between the T6 and T7 vertebrae is recognized as an optimal position for the totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). This study aimed to propose a simple formula for calculating the optimal insertion depth of the right internal jugular central venous catheter (CVC) of TIVAP in Chinese patients. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. The medical records of 151 patients with TIVAPs placement were retrospectively analyzed. Patient's height and actual insertion depth of CVC were used to build a simple linear regression model. The Peres' formula was revised to better calculate the optimal insertion depth of the right internal jugular CVC of TIVAPs, accounting for population-specific anatomical variations observed in Chinese patients. A total of 158 patients scheduled for TIVAPs placement were prospectively recruited. The insertion depth of catheter was preoperatively determined according to the established formula, and postoperative chest X-ray was performed to determine the position of catheter tip. The rate of proper position of catheter (the catheter tip within T6 or T7 vertebrae) was calculated to assess the clinical feasibility and effectiveness of the new formula. Results: The proper position rate was 64.24 % (97/151) in the retrospective group. According to patients' height and insertion depth of CVC of these 97 cases with proper position, Peres' formula was revised to 'insertion depth = 0.1∗height - 4 (cm)'. Based on insertion depth predicted by the new formula, the proper position rate in the prospective group reached 86.08 % (136/158). Conclusion: The simple formula for calculating the insertion depth of right internal jugular CVC of TIVAPs is clinically feasible for Chinese patients.
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.