To identify the difference in the central venous pressure measured via two different approaches.

We had searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database and Wanfang Database, and Google Scholar was used for supplement search. All the experimental studies with self-control design that investigated the difference in the central venous pressure measured via two different approaches from the database foundation of until 2014 were included. The literature exclusion and data collection were performed independently by two investigators. The literature quality was evaluated by the 2nd edition of quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). All the studies enrolled were assigned to high-quality and low-quality groups for subsequent stratified meta-analysis.

A total of 8 studies involving 273 samples were entered in the final analysis. Pooled analyses from all studies revealed a statistically significant difference between the two approaches (P=0.002), and the pooled deviation is 0.436 (95% CI: 0.166-0.707).

Consideration of minor difference between the two approaches showed by meta-analysis, peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC) remains feasible to measure central venous pressure. The consistency of the two approaches used for measuring central venous pressure requires further validation by large-scale clinical trials.

Meta-analysis; Central venous pressure(CVP); Peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC)