Skip to main content
. 2012 Mar 14;2012(3):CD004084. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004084.pub3

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Internal jugular versus subclavian insertion: long‐term catheterization for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection.

Internal jugular versus subclavian insertion: long‐term catheterization for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection
Patient or population: cancer patients
 Settings: inpatient
 Intervention: Internal jugular versus subclavian insertion: long‐term catheterization
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of Participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control versus subclavian insertion: long‐term catheterization
Catheter‐related infectious complications ‐ Exit site infection Study population RR 7 
 (0.88 to 55.86) 200
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2,3,4  
10 per 1000 70 per 1000
 (9 to 559)
Moderate
10 per 1000 70 per 1000
 (9 to 559)
Catheter‐related infectious complications ‐ Port‐related bacteraemia and/or pocket infections Study population RR 0.35 
 (0.04 to 3.32) 240
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1,2  
24 per 1000 9 per 1000
 (1 to 81)
Moderate
24 per 1000 8 per 1000
 (1 to 80)
Catheter‐related thrombotic complications Study population RR 1.97 
 (0.87 to 4.48) 240
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1,2  
65 per 1000 128 per 1000
 (57 to 291)
Moderate
65 per 1000 128 per 1000
 (57 to 291)
Immediate mechanical complications ‐ Total mechanical complications Study population RR 1 
 (0.21 to 4.84) 468
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2,3,4  
13 per 1000 13 per 1000
 (3 to 62)
Moderate
15 per 1000 15 per 1000
 (3 to 73)
Immediate mechanical complications ‐ Major mechanical complications Study population RR 0.33 
 (0.01 to 8.09) 468
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2,3,4  
4 per 1000 1 per 1000
 (0 to 34)
Moderate
5 per 1000 2 per 1000
 (0 to 40)
Late mechanical complications Study population RR 1.67 
 (0.41 to 6.79) 468
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2,3,4  
13 per 1000 21 per 1000
 (5 to 86)
Moderate
15 per 1000 25 per 1000
 (6 to 102)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Blinding not well described.
 2 Concealment not well described.
 3 Incomplete outcome data addressed.
 4 Selective reporting addressed.