Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27876075›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2016

Chlorhexidine bathing and health care-associated infections among adult intensive care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Steven A Frost, Mari-Cris Alogso, Lauren Metcalfe, Joan M Lynch, Leanne Hunt, Ritesh Sanghavi, Evan Alexandrou, Kenneth M Hillman

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Universal decolonization for methicillin-resistantPublic health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven A FrostCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. s.frost@westernsydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8879-0486
Mari-Cris AlogsoCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lauren MetcalfeCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joan M LynchCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Leanne HuntCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ritesh SanghaviDepartment of Intensive Care, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Evan AlexandrouCritical Care Research for Innovation & Evidence Translation (CCRICET) Research Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kenneth M HillmanSimpson Centre for Health Services Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School & Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Liverpool Hospital · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care-associated infections (HAI) have been shown to increase length of stay, the cost of care, and rates of hospital deaths (Kaye and Marchaim, J Am Geriatr Soc 62(2):306-11, 2014; Roberts and Scott, Med Care 48(11):1026-35, 2010; Warren and Quadir, Crit Care Med 34(8):2084-9, 2006; Zimlichman and Henderson, JAMA Intern Med 173(22):2039-46, 2013). Importantly, infections acquired during a hospital stay have been shown to be preventable (Loveday and Wilson, J Hosp Infect 86:S1-70, 2014). In particular, due to more invasive procedures, mechanical ventilation, and critical illness, patients cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at greater risk of HAI and associated poor outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to summarise the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing, in adult intensive care patients, to reduce infection.

methodsA systematic literature search was undertaken to identify trials assessing the effectiveness of CHG bathing to reduce risk of infection, among adult intensive care patients. Infections included were: bloodstream infections; central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI); catheter-associated urinary tract infections; ventilator-associated pneumonia; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus; and Clostridium difficile. Summary estimates were calculated as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence/credible intervals. Variation in study designs was addressed using hierarchical Bayesian random-effects models.

resultsSeventeen trials were included in our final analysis: seven of the studies were cluster-randomised crossover trials, and the remaining studies were before-and-after trials. CHG bathing was estimated to reduce the risk of CLABSI by 56% (Bayesian random effects IRR = 0.44 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.26, 0.75)), and MRSA colonisation and bacteraemia in the ICU by 41% and 36%, respectively (IRR = 0.59 (95% CrI, 0.36, 0.94); and IRR = 0.64 (95% CrI, 0.43, 0.91)). The numbers needed to treat for these specific ICU infections ranged from 360 (CLABSI) to 2780 (MRSA bacteraemia).

conclusionThis meta-analysis of the effectiveness of CHG bathing to reduce infections among adults in the ICU has found evidence for the benefit of daily bathing with CHG to reduce CLABSI and MRSA infections. However, the effectiveness may be dependent on the underlying baseline risk of these events among the given ICU population. Therefore, CHG bathing appears to be of the most clinical benefit when infection rates are high for a given ICU population.

Indexed as

BathsChlorhexidineCritical CareCritical IllnessCross InfectionDisinfectantsHumansIntensive Care UnitsMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusChlorhexidineDisinfectants

Identifiers

PMID27876075
PMCPMC5120440
OpenAlexW2552279840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.