Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41084578›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion2025

Utilization of the Total Error Allowance Rule to Determine the Clinical Acceptability of Complete Blood Counts in the Blood Samples Collected via Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Cancer Patients.

Xiaojing Xue, Jie Tang, Yuwei Yang, Lijuan Yang, Siqi Zhang, Xiaobo Du, Gang Feng, Chao Guo, Rong Chen, Yalan Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Xiaojing XueDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.ORCID 0000-0001-8310-2202
Jie TangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Yuwei YangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Lijuan YangDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Siqi ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Xiaobo DuDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Gang FengDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Chao GuoDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Rong ChenDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.
Yalan YangDepartment of Oncology, Mianyang Central Hospital Affiliated to School of Medicine of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Mianyang, 621000 PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used in oncology patients for drug infusion and nutritional support; however, their usefulness for blood sample collection has not been clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical acceptability of complete blood count (CBC) measurements in blood samples drawn from PICC lines in oncology patients. Blood samples were drawn twice successively from the PICC lines (PICC0 and PICC1 samples, respectively), and a peripheral blood collected from the contralateral limb was used as reference sample. Significant differences and sources of bias in the CBC measurements in two PICC samples were analyzed. Clinical acceptability was determined based on the total error allowance (TEa) rules. Except for hemoglobin and erythrocyte, no significant differences were observed in the other parameters between PICC1 and reference samples (all

Indexed as

Blood sampleComplete blood countPICCTotal error allowance

Identifiers

PMID41084578
PMCPMC12515192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.