ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Assessment of minimum discard volume for central venous catheter sampling: Validation via busulfan therapeutic drug monitoring in pediatric transplant patients.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
Purpose: Frequent blood sampling in pediatric patients, particularly during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), can lead to significant cumulative blood loss and increase the risk of iatrogenic anemia. This study aimed to evaluate whether reducing the discard volume prior to blood sampling affects the accuracy of plasma Busulfan concentration measurements in this vulnerable population. Patients and methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled thirteen pediatric patients receiving HSCT at a tertiary children's hospital in China between July and October 2024. Blood samples were collected via double-lumen central venous catheters at seven time points (T0-T6) after the fourth dose of Busulfan, using four different discard volumes (1, 2, 3, and 4 mL). Each patient contributed repeated measurements under all four discard-volume conditions, resulting in 364 samples. Paired analyses were used to account for the within-patient repeated-measures design, and AUC non-inferiority was assessed against the prespecified 6% margin using the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the paired differences. Results: Using paired within-patient analyses, no significant differences in plasma Busulfan concentrations were observed among the discard-volume conditions. Paired differences between reduced discard volumes (1, 2, and 3 mL) and the 4 mL reference remained small, with 95% confidence intervals demonstrating consistent agreement. AUC non-inferiority analysis showed that the reduced discard-volume approaches remained within the prespecified 6% non-inferiority margin. ICC demonstrated excellent agreement between the reduced discard-volume conditions and the 4 mL reference for both individual time-point concentrations (ICC > 0.95) and AUC values. Bland-Altman analysis showed consistent agreement, with differences evenly distributed within the calculated 95% limits of agreement. Conclusion: A minimal discard volume of 1 mL demonstrated non-inferior accuracy compared with the standard 4 mL discard volume for determining plasma Busulfan levels and overall drug exposure during therapeutic drug monitoring. Implementing this approach may reduce cumulative discarded blood volume by up to 21 mL per patient during the seven sampling time points; however, the direct effect of reduced discard volume on anemia or transfusion requirements was not evaluated. This study adhered to the STROBE guidelines for observational research, and no patient or public contribution was involved.
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.