Objective:To systematically evaluate the difference in the clinical effect of tunnel peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and non-tunnel PICC.Methods:Computer retrieval of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) , WanFang, VIP and China Biology Medicine disc was carried out, and the retrieval time limit was from the establishment of the database to December 31, 2021. After quality evaluation, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were used for meta-analysis.Results:A total of 3 050 patients were included in 11 articles. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, tunnel PICC could effectively reduce the incidence of catheter related infection [ OR=0.28, 95% CI (0.15, 0.52) , P<0.01], venous thrombosis [ OR=0.18, 95% CI (0.06, 0.55) , P<0.01], blood leakage [ OR=0.30, 95% CI (0.21, 0.42) , P<0.01], phlebitis [ OR=0.48, 95% CI (0.26, 0.88) , P=0.02], the ectopic rate of catheter [ OR=0.27, 95% CI (0.18, 0.41) , P<0.01], and did not increase the incidence of nerve and artery injury [ OR=0.49, 95% CI (0.10, 2.35) , P=0.37]. There were no significant differences in the incidence of catheter blockage ( OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.20, 1.59) and medical adhesion-related skin injury ( OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.21, 1.55) between the two groups ( P>0.05) . Conclusions:Subcutaneous tunnel technology can effectively improve the clinical effect of PICC, and has good clinical promotion value. However, high-quality and large-sample randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still needed to be confirmed in the later stage.