ArticleNursing open2026
Development and Temporal Validation of a Prediction Model for PICC-Related Catheter-Associated Skin Injury.
Article in Nursing open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related catheter-associated skin injury (CASI) and to develop and temporally validate a bedside prediction model.
methodsIn this prospective single-centre cohort study, 1309 adults who underwent PICC insertion from June 2022 to June 2023 formed the development cohort and 568 adults enrolled from July to September 2023 formed the temporally separated validation cohort. Participants underwent prospective weekly skin assessment until PICC removal or 6 months. Candidate predictors were selected using LASSO regression with 10-fold cross-validation and the one-standard-error rule, followed by multivariable logistic regression. The final six-predictor model was assessed using bootstrap internal validation, temporal validation, calibration and decision-curve analysis.
resultsPICC-related CASI occurred in 116 of 1309 participants (8.86%) in the development cohort and 40 of 568 (7.04%) in the validation cohort. The final model included primary tumour diagnosis (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.30-11.50), history of catheterization (OR 5.08, 95% CI 2.67-9.67), iodophor disinfectant use (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.25), functional dressing use (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.41), cytotoxic drug use (OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.70-9.55) and hormonal drug use (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.09-4.35). The optimism-corrected AUC was 0.811 in the development cohort. In temporal validation, the AUC was 0.681 (95% CI 0.610-0.743).
conclusionThe six-predictor model demonstrated good discrimination in the development cohort and may assist clinicians in identifying patients at high risk of PICC-related CASI. However, as a development-stage prediction model, it requires recalibration and independent multicentre external validation before being considered for routine clinical use. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The identified predictors may help nurses recognize patients at higher risk of PICC-related CASI and support more structured skin assessment during PICC care. As the model remains at the development stage, further recalibration and multicentre external validation are needed before routine clinical use.
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.