ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2025
The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in different central venous access devices: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of various interventions on relieving non-coring needle puncture-related pain in patients with totally implantable venous access port: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Thrombus Formation and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter-Related Infection: A Retrospective Observational Study.Nursing open · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Direct paired meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the incidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in different types of central venous access devices (CVADs). Material and methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI and CBM databases were systematically searched from inception to May 31, 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the incidence of CRBSIs across various types of CVADs. Literature screening, data extraction, and risk bias evaluation were all independently conducted by two individuals. Direct paired meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software, respectively. Results: A total of five studies were included. Paired meta-analyses revealed that the incidence of CRBSIs was lower in the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) group compared to the central venous catheter (CVC) group (RR = 0.23, 95% CI (0.13-0.43), Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that PICCs exhibit the lowest incidence of CVADs, followed by TIVAPs. Therefore, PICCs should be prioritized when selecting CVADs.
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.