Trial reportThe Pan African medical journal2026
[The role of central vascular access in the management of patients receiving chemotherapy for non-hematological malignant tumors: PICC line versus implantable Ports].
Trial report in The Pan African medical journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implantable ports (Ports) are used for chemotherapy administration. This study aimed to compare their morbidity, mortality, and complication rates. Methods: a prospective, randomised, comparative single-centre study with 6 months of follow-up included adult patients with non-hematological malignancies eligible for chemotherapy (palliative, curative, or adjuvant intent). Primary endpoints were the frequency of adverse events (minor/major), impact on quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), and medico-economic cost. Results: out of 206 randomised patients, 192 were analysed (Port: 102; PICC: 90). The overall complication rate was 12.5% (n=24). Major complications were significantly more frequent with PICCs (17.8%; 16/90) than with Ports (4.9%; 5/102), with a relative risk of 3.6 (95% CI 1.3-9.9; p=0.041). For chemotherapy lasting less than 6 months, the mean total cost was significantly higher for Ports (160,123.41 DA) than for PICCs (43,259.69 DA) (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed in overall quality of life, with a modest trend favoring Ports for global health and pain at three months. Conclusion: Ports, although costlier, are associated with a significantly lower risk of major complications. They may be preferred as a safe and effective access for long-term chemotherapy. The optimal choice should integrate treatment duration, patient risk profile, and economic constraints.
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.