ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2006
Antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters: their evaluation in burn patients.
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Scoping review on prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in burn patients].Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns · 2021Article
- [Not Available].Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2008Article
- [Not Available].Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central venous catheter-related infections are an important source of morbidity and mortality in burn patients. Antiseptic impregnated catheters have been recommended to prevent infections related to central venous lines in high-risk patients who require short-term catheters. This prospective, randomized, and controlled study compared the efficacy of standard and antiseptic devices in reducing catheter-related infections in burn patients. Twenty-two patients were included in the study with an average age of 47.6 yr and an average burned total body surface area of 38.7%. Thirty-eight silver-sulphadiazine, chlorhexidine catheters were compared with 40 non-antiseptic catheters. No differences in bacteraemia or colonization rates were observed between standard and antiseptic-coated catheters. Antiseptic catheters were more effective in reducing S. epidermidiscolonization than standard catheters (4% vs 31%, p < 0.01). However, Gram-negative bacilli were responsible more often than Gram-positive cocci for catheter tip colonization (53% vs 46%) and they were responsible for all the bacteraemias (5.1%) related to catheters in the present study. We conclude that antiseptic-impregnated catheters could be more effective for Gram-positive cocci and could therefore be less effective in patients with high Gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infection prevalence, as burn patients are.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21991025PMC3188027W1917434042What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.