Riapisarda 2006.

Methods	‐Country: Italy ‐Setting: university hospital ‐Study design: RCT
Participants	‐No. of participants randomised: 99 ‐Age (mean): 67.1 years ‐Gender: 47 males, 52 females ‐Exclusions post randomisation: not specified ‐Shifted to another arm: In the Seldinger group conversion to the venous cutdown technique occurred in 3 participants. In the venous cutdown group conversion to the Seldinger technique occurred in 1 participant ‐Inclusion criteria: TIVAP implantation for administration of systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of neoplastic ‐Exclusion criteria: not specified
Interventions	A total of 99 participants were randomly assigned to the cephalic vein cutdown group or the Seldinger group with percutaneous puncture of the subclavian vein. (n = 49 in the cutdown group and n = 50 in the Seldinger group). Intraoperative fluoroscopy was used and final postprocedural chest radiograph to confirm final catheter position
Outcomes	‐Technical failure requiring conversion to alternative technique ‐Mortality or associated morbidity ‐Early complications (within 30 days after implantation) ‐Late complications ‐Mean operation time ‐Operative cost ‐Patient acceptance
Notes	All participants underwent local anaesthetics with antibiotic prophylaxis with ceftriaxone. Only oncology patients
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Described as "randomized", but method not specified in the manuscript
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not specified in the manuscript
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding of either participants or personnel mentioned in the methodology. Comment: Blinding of personnel carrying out the procedure is not feasible for this procedure. Blinding of participants, however, is practically feasible. Nevertheless, it is unlikely the blinding of the personnel and participants would have affected the outcomes of the study. We judged performance bias as low risk of bias
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Losses to follow‐up: not specified
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Outcomes not reported in methods section
Other bias	High risk	No mention of funding. No mention of conflict of interest of authors. Exclusions post randomisation: not specified