ArticlePloS one2026
Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter versus non-tunneled and its effects in clinical outcomes: A multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06365528 (Tunneled Versus Non-Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter and Their Effects on Reducing Combined or Isolated Outcomes), which is not on this 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.
Tunneled Versus Non-Tunneled Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter and Their Effects on Reducing Combined or Isolated Outcomes (Obstruction, Infection, Thrombosis, and Dislodgement): Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) has increased due to its benefits, such as greater durability, safety, comfort, and cost-effectiveness. Technological advancements, such as catheter tip navigation systems and the use of ultrasound, have improved its quality. However, complications still occur, including infections and thrombosis, especially in oncology and intensive care patients. Studies indicate that advanced practices, technology, and specialized teams reduce these risks. New techniques, such as tunneled insertion, show potential for reducing complications, but further research with larger samples is needed to validate these findings.
objectiveTo compare the tunneling technique of PICC to non-tunneling insertion technique regarding the incidence of isolated or combined outcomes of catheter-related bloodstream infection, thrombosis, occlusion, and accidental dislodgement in the adult population within a 30-days period. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized, parallel, multicenter clinical trial, 840 patients from three reference hospitals will be assigned to two parallel groups (conventional PICC and tunneled PICC groups) through computer-generated stratified randomization. The conventional group will undergo PICC insertion according to routine practice. In the tunneled PICC group, an additional subcutaneous tunneling procedure will be performed. Patients will be followed until PICC removal for any reason or 30 days after insertion, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is to assess whether subcutaneous tunneling reduces the rate of isolated or combined adverse events (infection, thrombosis, obstruction, and dislodgement) compared to the conventional method. DISCUSSION: Subcutaneous tunneling is a widely used method to reduce complications associated with catheters. However, its application in PICC has not yet been extensively explored, especially in Brazil. A randomized clinical trial is necessary to objectively assess the effects of subcutaneous tunneling in PICC insertion. This protocol aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness of this technique in reducing complications.
trial registrationClinical Trials platform NCT06365528.
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.