ArticlePloS one2015
Antimicrobial Activity of a Novel Vascular Access Film Dressing Containing Chlorhexidine Gluconate.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCovering insertion sites with chlorhexidine impregnated dressings has been proven to be clinically effective in reducing catheter related blood stream infections (CR-BSI). Two chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings are commercially available, a polyurethane foam disk and a film dressing containing a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated gel pad. While both have demonstrated efficacy in clinical settings, the major drawback of high cost and impaired IV insertion site visibility limits their usage. A new, simple film dressing containing CHG within its adhesive layer is now available. The objective of this study was to test the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of the new dressing in comparison to the CHG-impregnated gel dressing.
methodsQuantitative aliquots of suspensions (concentration of 1.0x106 to 5.0x106 cfu/sample) of clinically relevant challenge organisms (Staphylococcus species, gram-negative bacilli, Candida albicans) were incubated in contact with the new CHG-containing film dressing, a placebo version of the same (negative control) and the commercially available CHG-impregnated gel dressing (positive control). Serial dilutions of the surviving organisms were quantified using the pour plate after 1, 3, 5, and 7 days of incubation in order to calculate an antimicrobial log10 reduction for each organism/dressing combination at each point in time.
resultsThe new CHG-containing film dressing delivered greater than 5.0 log10 reduction throughout the 7 days on all aerobic gram-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus species tested. As of day 1 the CHG-containing film dressing provided greater than 5.0 log10 reduction on Candida albicans. There were no statistically significant differences in the log10 reduction between the two dressings tested.
conclusionThe new CHG-containing film dressing was found to be as effective as the chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated gel dressing on clinically relevant microbes.
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.