SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Implantable Ports vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical 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.
- Article
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
BACKGROUND Reliable venous access is critical for breast cancer chemotherapy, yet the optimal choice between peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and implantable port catheters (IPC) remains unclear. This meta-analysis compares complication risks associated with these devices in patients with breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was conducted using EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and ScienceDirect (up to March 2025). Inclusion criteria focused on patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, with outcomes including thrombosis, infection, and catheter-related complications. Five studies (n=1125 patients) were analyzed using the R software, with pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Publication bias, as assessed by Egger's and Begg's tests, and heterogeneity (I²) were evaluated, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the robustness of the pooled effect estimates. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, Jadad scale, and GRADE tools. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS Pooled analysis demonstrated an increased complication risk with PICC, compared with IPC (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.24-2.46), driven by higher thrombosis and infection rates. No publication bias (Egger's P=0.411; Begg's P=0.624) was observed. Two large studies showed statistically significant risks, favoring IPC, while smaller studies reported non-significant trends. CONCLUSIONS IPC is associated with fewer complications in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy, particularly for non-short-term treatment. Clinical decisions should prioritize IPC for high-risk patients. These findings advocate for IPC use in updated clinical guidelines to enhance safety and outcomes in breast cancer treatment.
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.