Impact of Arm Selection on the Incidence of PICC Complications: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine if right arm peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) experienced fewer complications while controlling for gender, hand dominance, history of malignancy, dwell time and catheter size. METHODS: This was an intention-to-treat randomized controlled trial conducted in an academic medical center on two different sites between September 2012 and September 2015. All patients older than 18 years or age without known history of previous central line, contraindication to the use of a specific arm or hospitalized in the intensive care unit regardless of coagulation status, were considered for the study. Participants were randomized to the left or right arm group and were followed until catheter removal. Data collected included: PICC characteristics, insertion details, gender, arm dominance, history of malignancy, reason for insertion/removal, incidence of a complication and total dwell time. One-tailed hypothesis testing using a univariate logistic regression with odds ratio (OR) calculation was used to analyze the results. There were 202 patients randomly assigned, totaling 7657 catheter-days; 103 patients to the right-side group and 99 patients to the left-side group. RESULTS: Participants in both groups were statistically equivalent for right handedness, gender, oncologic status, average dwell time and total catheter days. The overall incidence of complications on the right side was 23% versus 34% on the left side, confirming the hypothesis that right-sided insertions led to fewer complications (p = 0.046). The risk of a complication was reduced by 40% with right-sided insertion (OR 0.58 (CI: 0.31-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated fewer complications with right-sided insertion irrespective of hand dominance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".