ArticleBJA open2025
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implanted port catheters in patients with breast cancer: a
Article in BJA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01971021 (Vascular Access in Cancer Patients - PICC vs PORT in a Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this 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.
Vascular Access in Cancer Patients - PICC vs PORT in a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implantable Ports vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Pooled it
- Preference versus protocol: oncology clinicians' perspectives on central venous access for administration of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- PICCs versus PORTs, an Australian perspective. Comment onBJA open · 2025Article
- Reply to Walker and Nott.BJA open · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy affecting women. However, the optimal strategy for patients requiring long-term central venous catheters in breast cancer treatment remains uncertain. Previous investigations involving a mixed cancer population have shown a higher frequency of adverse events among patients receiving peripherally implanted central catheters (PICCs) compared with totally implanted central catheters (PORTs). Our study aimed to compare catheter-related adverse events in breast cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a Results: Our analysis included 80 patients receiving PORT and 78 patients receiving PICC. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the PICC and PORT groups. Interestingly, PICC insertion was less painful than PORT insertion, although both groups reported low levels of pain. Conclusions: While acknowledging the limitations of an underpowered Clinical trial registration: NCT01971021.
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.