Observational studyBMC neurology2026
Comparison of the effects of mini-midline catheter placement in the forearm versus upper arm of neurosurgical patients based on propensity score matching.
Observational study in BMC neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMini-midline catheters are commonly used for intermediate-duration vascular access in neurosurgical patients, yet the optimal insertion site (forearm vs. upper arm) remains undefined. The aim of this study was to compare clinical effects, safety, and cost between forearm and upper arm mini-midline catheter placement in neurosurgical patients.
methodsThis prospective, non-randomized controlled observational study included 168 neurosurgical patients admitted to a tertiary general hospital between March 2024 and October 2025. All patients received ultrasound-guided mini-midline catheter placement. The insertion site (forearm: 74 patients; upper arm: 94 patients) was determined jointly by the patient and the attending nurse after standardized information disclosure and discussion. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 48 patients from each group were included in the final analysis. Outcomes included puncture-related indicators, post-puncture complications, catheter removal rate due to catheter-related complications, indwelling duration, comfort, time to first complication, and economic cost.
resultsAfter PSM, no significant differences were observed between the upper arm and forearm groups in first-attempt puncture success rate (87.50% vs. 75.00%), total catheterization time [17.00 (15.00, 18.00) vs. 16.00 (14.00, 25.50) min], catheter-related comfort score [101.50 (74.25, 104.00) vs. 95.00 (65.50, 105.00) points], or total catheter-related economic cost (646.36 ± 39.36 vs. 658.85 ± 54.10 yuan) (all P > 0.05). Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found between the upper arm and forearm groups in puncture-related pain score [5.00 (4.00, 6.00) vs. 5.50 (4.00, 7.00) points], post-puncture catheter-related complication rates (50.00% vs. 72.92%), phlebitis incidence (33.33% vs. 56.25%), catheter removal rate due to post-puncture catheter-related complications (25.00% vs. 45.83%), indwelling catheter duration [7.50 (6.00, 12.00) vs. 6.00 (4.00, 6.75) days] and the time to first occurrence of post-puncture catheter-related complications [7.00 (6.00, 11.00) vs. 5.00 (3.00, 6.00) days] (all P < 0.05).
conclusionThis propensity score-matched study provides preliminary evidence that upper arm placement may offer advantages over forearm placement for mini-midline catheters in neurosurgical patients. However, given the non-randomized design, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes. 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.