ArticlePloS one2018
Variation in infection prevention practices for peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A survey of neonatal units in England and Wales.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation: the ARCTIC randomised controlled feasibility trial.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2024Trial
- Incidence of late onset bloodstream infections and use of preventive practices in very low birth weight infants in Spain: the NeoKissEs cohort surveillance experience.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- The use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to central venous catheterization in infants: a national survey of the Italian Society of Neonatology.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of three antiseptics for neonatal skin disinfection: a cohort study.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of three antiseptics for neonatal skin disinfection: further evidence for chlorhexidine gluconate.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Impact of daily octenidine skin washing versus nonwashing on antiseptic tolerance of coagulase-negative staphylococci in two neonatal intensive care units with different skin cleansing practices.Infection prevention in practice · 2024Article
- Assessment of Alcohol Exposure From Alcohol-Based Disinfectants Among Premature Infants in Neonatal Incubators in Japan.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Chlorhexidine bathing in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit: A pilot study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Linking surveillance and clinical data for evaluating trends in bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England.PloS one · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is uncertainty about the variation in infection prevention practices for central venous catheters (CVC) in neonatal units (NNUs) and how practices relate to national guidance.
aimTo evaluate evidence supporting infection prevention practices for CVCs recommended in national guidelines and to compare with reported practices for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), a type of CVC widely used in NNUs.
designWe searched national guidelines for neonates and children to identify infection prevention practices for CVCs and conducted an overview of studies to determine the quality of evidence underpinning recommendations. We surveyed 134 NNUs in England and Wales to ascertain reported practice.
resultsWe found low quality evidence supporting CVC care bundles and use of 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine to decontaminate catheter ports and skin before insertion. Moderate quality evidence supported recommendations against routinely replacing CVCs and against chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings. 90% (44/49) of NICUs and 40% (34/85) of LNUs responded. 66% (48/73) of NNUs reported using CVC care bundles for insertion; 62% (45/73) used bundles for maintenance. 63% (32/51) of those using bundles reported monitoring adherence. 85% (61/72) of NNUs did not routinely replace PICCs and 89% (63/71) did not use chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings. Antiseptic use varied with alcoholic 2% chlorhexidine used for skin preparation in 33% (23/71) of NNUs and for catheter ports in 52% (37/71).
conclusionsLack of consistency across NNUs in antiseptic use and low rates of reported CVC care bundle use may reflect the low quality of evidence of the effectiveness and safety of these interventions in NNUs. Clinical trials are needed to quantify benefits and harms of infection prevention practices in NNUs.
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.