ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
A novel exploration of treating local skin infections around totally implantable venous access ports: port repositioning technique vs. port re-implantation technique.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. 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.
- Comprehensive management of hemodialysis catheter-related bloodstream infections: a narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy of the port repositioning technique and the port re-implantation technique in treating periport skin infections associated with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs).
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 35 patients who presented with periport skin infections at Jiangyin People's Hospital between June 2016 and August 2022. Among them, 15 patients in Group A underwent port repositioning surgery, while 20 patients in Group B received port re-implantation surgery. Clinical data of all patients were meticulously collected, including postoperative wound healing status and the functionality of the repositioned or re-implanted TIVAPs.
resultsIn Group A, the median age was 58 years (IQR 46-63 years); in Group B, the median age was 60.5 years (IQR 54.3-70 years). The median BMI of Group A patients was 22.2 kg/m
conclusionCompared with the port re-implantation technique, the port repositioning technique for periport skin infections is a minimally invasive and cost-effective approach. Nevertheless, further investigations with a larger number of cases are required to comprehensively validate its safety and reliability.
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.