ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2017
Does antimicrobial lock solution reduce catheter-related infections in hemodialysis patients with central venous catheters? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- The current status and evolution of hemodialysis catheters.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Article
- Pre-Emptive Antimicrobial Locks Decrease Long-Term Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Current state of the art for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.Intensive care medicine · 2017Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of our study is to carry out a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of different antimicrobial lock solutions (ALS) for prevention of catheter-related infections (CRI) in patients with hemodialysis (HD) and ranking these ALS for practical consideration.
methodsWe searched six electronic databases, earlier relevant meta-analysis and reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ALS for preventing episodes of CRI in patients with HD either head-to-head or against control interventions using non-ALS. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and extracted relevant information according to a predesigned extraction form. Data were analysed using the WinBUGS (V.1.4.3) and the Stata (V.13.0).
resultsFinally, 18 studies involving 2395 patients and evaluating 9 ALS strategies were included. Network meta-analysis showed that gentamicin plus citrate (OR 0.07, 95% CrI 0.00-0.48) and gentamicin plus heparin (OR 0.04, 95% CrI 0.00-0.23) were statistically superior to heparin alone in terms of reducing CRBSI. For exit site infection and all-cause mortality, no significant difference in the intervention effect (p > 0.05) was detected for all included ALS when compared to heparin. Moreover, all ALS were similar in efficacy (p > 0.05) from each other for CRBSI, exit site infection and all-cause mortality.
conclusionsOur findings indicated that gentamicin plus heparin may be selected for the prophylaxis of CRI in patients undergoing HD with CVCs. Whether this strategy will lead to antimicrobial resistance remains unclear in view of the relatively short duration of included studies. More attentions should be made regarding head-to-head comparisons of the most commonly used ALS in this field.
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.