Observational studyPloS one2026
Real-world validation of a length prediction formula for bedside PICC placement: A single-center retrospective observational study.
Observational study 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to validate a landmark-based catheter length prediction formula for bedside peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement in a real-world clinical setting, especially in complex environments where advanced navigation technologies may be limited or unsuitable. We retrospectively analyzed 449 consecutive bedside PICC placements performed between March 2022 and September 2025. Catheter insertion length was estimated beforehand using a formula based on anteroposterior chest radiograph (CXR) measurements, including clavicle length and vertebral body units. Final tip positions were assessed by two independent radiologists using post-procedural CXR in relation to the cavoatrial junction (CAJ), with optimal positioning defined as the tip being within ±2.8 cm of the CAJ. Of the 449 cases, technical success was achieved in 436 (97.1%), and optimal tip positioning was seen in 74.3% of successful cases. The interobserver agreement for tip assessment was 98.45% (95% confidence interval: 96.84-99.25%). The average distance from the catheter tip to the CAJ was -0.10 ± 2.59 cm, with a median of 0.0 cm. Rates of optimal positioning did not significantly differ based on operator experience (p = 0.496) or approach side (p = 0.590). Importantly, the technical success rate remained high (97.5%) even in patients with other intravascular devices, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulas or hemodialysis catheters. In conclusion, the landmark-based formula offers high predictive accuracy and excellent reproducibility for bedside PICC placement. It serves as a reliable initial safety measure and a practical alternative in complex intensive care settings where real-time navigation is limited or systemically constrained.
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.