ArticlePloS one2026
Outcomes of a bedside ultrasound-guided peripherally-inserted central catheter placement across critically-ill older patients.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn ultrasound (US)-guided peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is a thin, flexible tube inserted into a vein in the upper arm and then guided into a large vein near the heart, using US for precise vein location. We conducted this single-center, retrospective study to describe outcomes of a bedside US-guided PICC across critically-ill older patients in a single small-volume center in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting in Korea.
methodsWe included 452 Korean older ICU patients aged ≥60 years who received PICC at our hospital between January of 2021 and December of 2024. A logistic regression analysis with odds ratio (OR) was performed to identify risk factors of the non-optimal position of catheter tip. The overall PICC-related infection-free survival was expressed as mean±standard error, for which 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided and the statistical significance was analyzed using the log-rank test. The corresponding Kaplan-Meier survival and hazards were plotted as a curve.
resultsThere were a total of 13 cases (2.88%) of the PICC-related infection. Of these, there were five cases (1.1%) of PICC-related bloodstream infection. A total of 421 patients (93.1%) had optimal positions of the PICC tip. A logistic regression analysis showed that male sex (OR 0.202; 95% CI 0.078-0.521, p = 0.001), the length of a catheter (OR 0.786; 95% CI 0.683-0.904, p = 0.001) and right side (OR 4.415; 95% CI 1.649-11.824, p = 0.003) were significant risk factors of non-optimal positions of the catheter. Time-to-events are estimated at 56.29 ± 0.98 days (95% CI 54.37-58.21). Moreover, survival rates are estimated to reach 0.918 ± 0.032 (95% CI 0.858-0.983) at 31 days of the PICC use.
conclusionsWe describe outcomes of a bedside US-guided PICC across critically-ill older patients in a single small-volume center in an ICU setting in Korea.
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.