SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Safety of totally implantable venous access devices and peripherally inserted central catheters in hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Article
- Complex venous access in superior vena cava syndrome secondary to gray zone lymphoma, case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are the two options for patients receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. However, it remains unclear which approach yields superior patient outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of TIVAPs and PICCs in patients undergoing chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify available articles comparing the effect of TIVADs and PICCs. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0, with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) used as effect indicators. Results: A total of 10 studies, including 784 patients (386 in the TIVAD group and 398 in the PICC group), met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that compared with PICCs, TIVAPs were associated with lower significantly risks of infection (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.11-0.40), catheter occlusion (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.77), phlebitis (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06-0.42), and catheter dislodgement (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.76) compared to PICCs. However, there was no significant difference between the two devices in terms of thrombosis risk (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.10-1.41). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests a potential association between TIVAPs and a lower risk of complications compared with PICCs in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing chemotherapy.
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.