Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40835653›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Comparative safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus long peripheral catheters in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Linfang Zhao, Xiaohui Yang, Chang Liu, Weihua Yu, Xiuzhu Cao, Xiangyun Li, Jie Wang, Yiyu Zhuang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06031545 (An Exploratory Study of Perioperative Venous Access in Obese Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06031545 naunknown statusnot on this map

An Exploratory Study of Perioperative Venous Access in Obese Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorSir Run Run Shaw HospitalRan2023 to 2025Enrolled528ConditionsCatheter ComplicationsArmsLong peripheral venous catheters for use, Midline catheter
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Linfang Zhao *Nursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Xiaohui Yang *Nursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Chang LiuWenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Weihua YuDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Xiuzhu CaoNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Xiangyun LiNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Jie WangNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Yiyu ZhuangNursing Department, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China. zhuangyy@zju.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe obesity, however, reliable vascular access during the perioperative period remains a challenge in this population. This study compared the safety and efficacy of midline catheters (MCs) and long peripheral catheters (LPCs) in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. This single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary acute hospital between September 2023 and January 2024. A totol of 224 patients were assigned to receive either MC or LPC. The primary outcome was catheter failure; secondary outcomes included insertion attempts, time to insert the device, indwelling time, complications, requirements for additional vascular access devices, and patient satisfaction. The incidence of catheter failure was significantly lower in the MCs group (10.71%) than in the LPCs group (20.54%; odds ratio [OR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.99; P = 0.043). Additionally, MCs had longer median indwelling times (7 d vs. 5 d; P < 0.001), fewer complications (13.39% vs. 27.68%; OR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80; P = 0.008), and required fewer additional devices (4.46% vs. 16.07%; OR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.68; P = 0.004). These findings suggest that MCs are a superior choice for vascular access devices in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.Trial registration: Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06031545 11/09/2023).

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryCatheterization, PeripheralAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgeryMidline cathetersObesity managementPeripheral intravenous cathetersVascular access devices

Identifiers

PMID40835653
PMCPMC12368232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.