Trial reportRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2014
Chlorhexidine and gauze and tape dressings for central venous catheters: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving central venous catheter care with chlorhexidine gluconate dressings: evidence from a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for the prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Determining the Effectiveness of Preventive Measures in Reducing Intravenous Injection and Catheter-Related Infections: A Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Risk factors and chlorhexidine dressings in external ventricular drainage: a retrospective analysis on infection rates.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Analysis of Factors Causing Skin Damage in the Application of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in Cancer Patients.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
- Patient safety in nursing care during medication administration.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2018Observational
- Article
- Venous Access Devices: Clinical Rounds.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the chlorhexidine antimicrobial dressing in comparison to the gauze and tape dressing in the use of central venous catheters.
methodA randomized clinical trial was conducted in the intensive care and adult semi intensive care units of a university hospital in the south of Brazil. The subjects were patients using short-term central venous catheters, randomly assigned to the intervention (chlorhexidine antimicrobial dressing) or control (gauze and micro porous tape) groups.
resultsA total of 85 patients were included: 43 in the intervention group and 42 in the control group. No statistically significant differences were found between dressings in regard to the occurrence of: primary bloodstream infections (p-value = 0.5170); local reactions to the dressing (p-value = 0.3774); and dressing fixation (p-value = 0.2739).
conclusionBoth technologies are effective in covering central venous catheters in regard to the investigated variables and can be used for this purpose. Registry ECR: RBR-7b5ycz.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.