Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42609201›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026

Comparative safety and effectiveness of midline catheters vs. peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohammed Aljameie, Aya Ahmed Shimal, Mohamed H Mahmoud, Omar F Abbas, Alaa Mohammed Oudah, Marafi Jammaa Ahmed, Khadeeja Ali Hamzah, Anas Mansour, Wael Abdullatif Abdulqader, Eathar Aljubori and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Mohammed AljameieHammurabi College of Medicine, University of Babylon, Babil, Iraq.
Aya Ahmed ShimalCollege of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Mohamed H MahmoudFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Omar F AbbasFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Alaa Mohammed OudahAl-Kindy Medical College, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Marafi Jammaa AhmedFaculty of Medicine, Bahri University, Khartoum, Sudan.
Khadeeja Ali HamzahAl-Kindy Medical College, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Anas MansourFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Wael Abdullatif AbdulqaderKufa University, College of Medicine, Najaf, Iraq.
Eathar AljuboriKufa University, College of Medicine, Najaf, Iraq.
Ghadeer MohammedFaculty of medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Fayez Salahedin AlkhateebCollege of Medicine, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.
Toka Aziz El-RamlyFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Alhareth Al-SagbanJohns Hopkins University-School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Howard GrahamJohns Hopkins University-School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Maria Carolina MusriJohns Hopkins University-School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & objective: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters (MCs) are widely used for intravenous therapy, but their relative safety and effectiveness remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare complication rates between PICCs and MCs. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating PICCs vs. MCs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fifteen studies (3 RCTs and 12 cohort studies) including over 27,000 patients were analyzed. PICCs were associated with a significantly higher risk of CRBSIs compared with MCs (RR = 4.18, 95% CI: 2.87-6.08; Conclusion: MCs are associated with a lower risk of bloodstream infections compared with PICCs. PICCs remain appropriate for long-term therapy, while MCs may represent a safer alternative for shorter courses. Device selection should be individualized based on patient risk factors, treatment duration, and clinical context.

Indexed as

complicationsmeta-analysismidline catheter (MC)PICC cathetersafety

Identifiers

PMID42609201
PMCPMC13477894

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.