ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Incidence and characteristics of catheter-related thrombosis in children with malignant tumors: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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.
- Risk prediction models for central venous catheter-related complications in children: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication during the treatment of pediatric malignancies. The use of central venous access devices (CVADs) represents a significant risk factor for VTE. While prior studies have investigated VTE and catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in general pediatric populations, comprehensive data on the incidence and risk factors specific to Chinese pediatric oncology patients remain scarce.
aimTo retrospectively evaluate the incidence and characteristics of CRT in a single-center cohort of pediatric oncology patients in China, thereby addressing this existing evidence gap.
designSingle-center retrospective cohort study.
methodsMedical records from 785 pediatric oncology patients who underwent CVAD placement at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Collected variables included age, sex, cancer type, catheter type, CRT occurrence, laboratory indices, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis were performed using chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent or paired t-tests for continuous variables.
resultsAmong the 785 patients, 20 ( 2.5%) developed CRT. The majority (94.1%) received peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), which were associated with a lower CRT incidence (1.9%) compared with central venous catheters (CVCs) (16.7%) and totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) (10.7%) (P < 0.001). A significant post-diagnosis increase in D-dimer levels was observed in patients with CRT (P = 0.040). The incidence of CRT did not differ significantly between patients with hematologic malignancies (2.6%) and those with solid tumors (2.4%). Most CRT cases (70.0%) occurred within the first month after catheter insertion. Symptomatic CRT predominated in the PICC group (78.6%), while asymptomatic CRT was more frequent in the CVC and TIVAP groups (83.3%). No CRT-related complications were observed during the 6-month follow-up period after CRT diagnosis.
conclusionPICCs were associated with a lower incidence of CRT compared with other catheter types. Although elevated D-dimer levels were observed following CRT diagnosis, further research is warranted to clarify its potential screening value. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.