ArticleBMC infectious diseases2019
Educational interventions alone and combined with port protector reduce the rate of central venous catheter infection and colonization in respiratory semi-intensive care unit.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03486093 (Randomized Clinical Trial on the Role of Port Protectors for the Management of Venous Central Line Catheter in Respiratory Semi-intensive Care Unit.), 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.
Randomized Clinical Trial on the Role of Port Protectors for the Management of Venous Central Line Catheter in Respiratory Semi-intensive Care Unit.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving critical care nurses' knowledge of central venous catheter management through education.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2025Article
- Medical Device-Associated Biofilm Infections and Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- In vitro assessment of isopropanol leakage from antiseptic barrier caps into commonly used needleless connectors.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Article
- Disinfectant capsLe infezioni in medicina · 2023Article
- Advances in Medical Nutrition Therapy: Parenteral Nutrition.Nutrients · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral Line-Associated BloodStream Infections (CLABSIs) are emerging challenge in Respiratory semi-Intensive Care Units (RICUs). We evaluated efficacy of educational interventions on rate of CLABSIs and effects of port protector as adjuvant tool.
methodsStudy lasted 18 months (9 months of observation and 9 of intervention). We enrolled patients with central venous catheter (CVC): 1) placed during hospitalization in RICU; 2) already placed without signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) within 48 h after the admission; 3) already placed without evidence of microbiologic contamination of blood cultures. During interventional period we randomized patients into two groups: 1) educational intervention (Group 1) and 2) educational intervention plus port protector (Group 2). We focused on CVC-related sepsis as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the rate of CVC colonization and CVC contamination.
resultsEighty seven CVCs were included during observational period. CLABSIs rate was 8.4/1000 [10 sepsis (9 CLABSIs)]. We observed 17 CVC colonizations and 6 contaminations. Forty six CVCs were included during interventional period. CLABSIs rate was 1.4/1000. 21/46 CVCs were included into Group 2, in which no CLABSIs or contaminations were reported, while 2 CVC colonizations were found.
conclusionsOur study clearly shows that both kinds of interventions significantly reduce the rate of CLABSIs. In particular, the use of port protector combined to educational interventions gave zero CLABSIs rate.
trial registrationNCT03486093 [ ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier], retrospectively registered.
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.