Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare peripheral arm ports versus central chest ports in complication rates. BACKGROUND: Late complications of arm ports versus chest ports, including catheter-related infection, venous thrombosis and catheter obstruction, remain controversial. DESIGN: A meta-analysis conducted following the Cochrane handbook. DATA SOURCES: Studies published between 1950-August 2017 were searched through Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library. REVIEW METHODS: Two authors independently searched the eligible studies and extracted the data. Studies reporting complications of arm ports compared with chest ports, published in full texts and abstracts, were included. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We did subgroup analyses according to cancer type, age, follow-up and anticoagulant. Relative ratios were calculated with different models. RESULTS: A total of 15 articles covering 3,524 tumour patients met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in catheter-related infection and catheter obstruction between arm ports and chest ports. After reducing the high heterogeneity, no difference was observed in thrombosis overall; however, arm ports had a lower thrombosis rate than chest ports in patients with head and neck cancer, while a higher thrombosis rate was observed in patients <60 years old or follow up ≥1 year. Further studies are needed in venous thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Arm ports are a safe option beside chest ports for adult patients with malignancy, especially in patients with head-neck cancer or breast cancer. Patients should be well informed of the advantages and disadvantages of different vascular access devices and provided a choice.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".