SynthesisRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2016
Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cirrhotic Liver of Liver Transplant Recipients Accumulate Silver and Co-Accumulate Copper.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto evaluate the effectiveness and safety in the use of second-generation central venous catheters impregnated in clorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine when compared with other catheters, being them impregnated or not, in order to prevent the bloodstream infection prevention.
methodsystematic review with meta-analysis. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS/SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL; search in Congress Proceedings and records from Clinical Trials.
results1.235 studies were identified, 97 were pre-selected and 4 were included. In catheter-related bloodstream infection, there was no statistical significance between second-generation impregnated catheter compared with the non-impregnated ones, absolute relative risk 1,5% confidence interval 95% (3%-1%), relative risk 0,68 (confidence interval 95%, 0,40-1,15) and number needed to treat 66. In the sensitivity analysis, there was less bloodstream infection in impregnated catheters (relative risk 0,50, confidence interval 95%, 0,26-0,96). Lower colonization, absolute relative risk 9,6% (confidence interval 95%, 10% to 4%), relative risk 0,51 (confidence interval 95% from 0,38-0,85) and number needed to treat 5.
conclusionthe use of second-generation catheters was effective in reducing the catheter colonization and infection when a sensitivity analysis is performed. Future clinical trials are suggested to evaluate sepsis rates, mortality and adverse effects. OBJETIVO: evaluar la efectividad y seguridad del uso de catéteres venosos centrales de segunda generación, impregnados en clorhexidina y sulfadiazina de plata, comparados con otros catéteres impregnados o no impregnados, para prevención de infección de la corriente sanguínea. MÉTODO: revisión sistemática con metaanálisis. La búsqueda fue realizada en las bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS/SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL; fueron consultados anales de congresos y registros de ensayos clínicos. RESULTADOS: fueron identificados 1.235 estudios, 97 preseleccionados y cuatro incluidos. En la infección de la corriente sanguínea, relacionada al catéter, no hubo significación estadística entre catéter de segunda generación impregnado en comparación a los no impregnados, riesgo relativo absoluto 1,5%, intervalo de confianza 95% (3%-1%), riesgo relativo 0,68 (intervalo de confianza 95%, 0,40-1,15) y número necesario para tratar 66. En el análisis de sensibilidad, hubo disminución de la infección de la corriente sanguínea en los catéteres impregnados (riesgo relativo 0,50, intervalo de confianza 95%, 0,26-0,96). Reducción de la colonización, riesgo relativo absoluto de 9,6% (intervalo de confianza 95%, 10% a 4%), riesgo relativo 0,51 (intervalo de confianza 95% de 0,38-0,85) y número necesario para tratar 5. CONCLUSIÓN: el uso de los catéteres de segunda generación fue efectivo en la reducción de la colonización del catéter y de infección cuando realizado análisis de sensibilidad. Se sugirieron ensayos clínicos futuros que evalúen tasas de sepsis, mortalidad y efectos adversos. OBJETIVO: avaliar a efetividade e segurança do uso de cateteres venosos centrais de segunda geração, impregnados em clorexidina e sulfadiazina de prata, comparados com outros cateteres impregnados ou não, na prevenção de infecção de corrente sanguínea. MÉTODO: revisão sistemática com metanálise. Busca realizada nas bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS/SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL; consulta em anais de congresso e registro de ensaios clínicos. RESULTADOS: foram identificados 1.235 estudos, 97 pré-selecionados e quatro incluídos. Na infecção de corrente sanguínea, relacionada ao cateter, não houve significância estatística entre cateter de segunda geração impregnado em comparação aos não impregnados risco relativo absoluto 1,5%, intervalo de confiança 95% (3%-1%), risco relativo 0,68 (intervalo de confiança 95%, 0,40-1,15) e número necessário para tratar 66. Na análise de sensibilidade, houve diminuição da infecção de corrente sanguínea nos cateteres impregnados (risco relativo 0,50, intervalo de confiança 95%, 0,26-0,96). Redução da colonização, risco relativo absoluto de 9,6% (intervalo de confiança 95%, 10% a 4%), risco relativo 0,51 (intervalo de confiança 95% de 0,38-0,85) e número necessário para tratar 5. CONCLUSÃO: o uso dos cateteres de segunda geração foi efetivo na redução de colonização do cateter e de infecção quando realizada análise de sensibilidade. Sugerem-se ensaios clínicos futuros que avaliem taxas de sepse, mortalidade e efeitos adversos.
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.