SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Comparison of catheter-related bloodstream infection between peripherally inserted central catheters and tunneled central venous catheters in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) remains one of the most severe complications in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are the most commonly used devices for home parenteral nutrition. However, the relative risks of CRBSI from these devices remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the incidence of CRBSI between PICCs and tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from database inception to 3 June 2025 to identify studies comparing the incidence of CRBSI between PICCs and tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the relative risk of CRBSI associated with PICCs versus tunneled CVCs using either the fixed-effects model or the random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 10 articles, involving 1,139 patients with PICCs or tunneled CVCs, were included in the meta-analysis. The mean CRBSI rate was 0.77 per 1,000 PICC-days and 1.01 per 1,000 tunneled CVC-days. The pooled analysis demonstrated that PICCs were associated with a significantly lower risk of CRBSI compared with tunneled CVCs (RR:0.40, 95%CI:0.33-0.49). Subgroup analyses stratified by study design, patient population, and CRBSI definition yielded consistent results, confirming the robustness of the primary findings. According to the GRADE approach, the quality of evidence was very low for the CRBSI rate. Conclusion: PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CRBSI than tunneled CVCs in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. However, the certainty of evidence was very low; therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality studies are needed.
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.