ArticleCritical care (London, England)2016
Assessment of central venous catheter colonization using surveillance culture of withdrawn connectors and insertion site skin.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06216080 (Dynamic Full-Field Optical Coherence Tomography for Structural and Microbiological Characterization of Central Venous Catheter-deposited Biofilm in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Dynamic Full-Field Optical Coherence Tomography for Structural and Microbiological Characterization of Central Venous Catheter-deposited Biofilm in Critically Ill Patients
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unresolved issues in the diagnosis of catheter related candidemia: A position paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Review
- Central Venous Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Comparison of Indwelling Time Resulting in Colonization by Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Alfred™ turbidity monitoring system (Alifax®) following sonication in the diagnosis of central venous catheter colonization.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
- Vascular catheter colonization: surveillance based on culture of needleless connectors.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Chlorhexidine Gluconate-Containing Dressings in Reducing Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections, Hospital Stay, and Costs.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCulture of catheter hubs and skin surrounding the catheter entry site has a negative predictive value for catheter tip colonization. However, manipulation of the hub for culture requires the hubs to be swabbed, introducing potential dislodging of biofilm and subsequent migration of microorganisms. Hubs are usually closed with needleless connectors (NCs), which are replaced regularly. Our objective was to evaluate whether culture of flushed withdrawn NCs is an alternative to hub culture when investigating central venous catheter colonization.
methodsThe study population comprised 49 intensive care unit patients whose central venous catheters had been in place for at least 7 days. Cultures of NCs and skin were obtained weekly.
resultsWe included 82 catheters with more than 7 days' indwelling time. The catheter tip colonization rate was 18.3% (15/82). Analysis of skin and NC cultures revealed a 92.5% negative predictive value for catheter colonization. Three episodes of catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI) occurred in patients with colonized catheters.
conclusionSurveillance of NC and skin cultures could help to identify patients at risk for C-RBSI.
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.