Trial reportPloS one2015
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01189682 (Impact of Tegaderm HP and Tegaderm CHG in Major Catheter Related Infections and Dressing Detachment in ICU Patients a Prospective Randomized Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Impact of Tegaderm HP and Tegaderm CHG in Major Catheter Related Infections and Dressing Detachment in ICU Patients a Prospective Randomized Study
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 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
- Trial
- Trial
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device versus suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit.Annals of intensive care · 2020Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Wound Care: A concept analysis.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2018Review
- What is new for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections?Annals of translational medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients.
designThis study uses a novel health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing versus transparent dressings in a French intensive care unit scenario. The 30-day time non-homogeneous markovian model comprises eight health states. The probabilities of events derive from a multicentre (12 French intensive care units) randomized controlled trial. 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 patients per dressing strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The outcome is the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a recent French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient is also estimated. PATIENTS: 1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours.
interventionChlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings.
resultsThe chlorhexidine gluconate dressing prevents 11.8 infections /1,000 patients (95% confidence interval: [3.85; 19.64]) with a number needed to treat of 85 patients. The mean cost difference per patient of €141 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: [€-975; €1,258]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is of €12,046 per catheter-related bloodstream infection prevented, and the incremental net monetary benefit per patient is of €344.88.
conclusionsAccording to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing.
trial registrationThis model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).
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.