ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of two blunt dissection sheath insertion techniques in peripherally inserted central catheter placement: a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the one-step sheath insertion technique is non-inferior to the conventional two-step technique with respect to first-attempt sheath insertion success in adults undergoing peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement. Methods: This prospective, single-center, outcome-assessor-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial included 500 adult patients undergoing PICC placement, who were randomly assigned 1:1 to the one-step or two-step sheath insertion group. The primary outcome was first-attempt sheath insertion success, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -5 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and 24-hour puncture-site bleeding, insertion-site infection, and phlebitis within 7 days. Results: First-attempt sheath insertion was successful in 92.0% (230/250) of patients in the one-step group and 95.6% (239/250) in the two-step group. The absolute risk difference was -3.6 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 0.6), and the lower confidence bound crossed the prespecified non-inferiority margin; therefore, non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Intraoperative puncture-site bleeding was less severe in the one-step group ( Conclusion: The one-step sheath insertion technique did not demonstrate non-inferiority to the conventional two-step technique for first-attempt sheath insertion success. Although less severe intraoperative puncture-site bleeding was observed with the one-step technique, this secondary finding should be interpreted cautiously. The present findings do not support routine replacement of the two-step technique.
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.