ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2015
In vitro study on the disinfectability of two split-septum needle-free connection devices using different disinfection procedures.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Activity of Antiseptics AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Preclinical evaluation of passive disinfection caps with a long-term catheter for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in pediatric cancer patients.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study investigated the external disinfection of two needle-free connection devices (NFC) using Octeniderm(®) (spraying and wiping technique) vs. Descoderm(®) pads (wiping technique). The split-septum membrane of the NFC was contaminated with >10(5) CFU K. pneumoniae or S. epidermidis. The efficacy of the disinfection at 30 sec. exposure time was controlled by taking a swab sample and by flushing the NFC with sterile 0.9% sodium chloride solution. Disinfection with octenidine dihydrochloride 0.1 g, 1-Propanol 30.0 g, and 2-Propanol 45.0 g in 100 g solution was highly effective (CFU reduction ≥4 log) against both microorganisms, whereas the use of 63.1 g 2-Propanol in 100 ml solution led to residual contamination with S. epidermidis. Our investigation underlines that (i) in clinical practice disinfection of NFCs before use is mandatory, and that (ii) details of disinfection technique are of utmost importance regarding their efficacy. Our investigation revealed no significant differences between both split-septum NFC types. Clinical studies are needed to confirm a possible superiority of disinfectants with long-lasting residual antimicrobial activity.
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.