SynthesisMedicine2019
Comparative efficacy of 13 antimicrobial dressings and different securement devices in reducing catheter-related bloodstream infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Prevention and treatment of catheter-related venous thrombosis in long-term parenteral nutrition: A SINuC position statement.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
- [Update of the recommendations of the Bacteraemia Zero Project].Enfermeria intensiva · 2022Review
- Review
- Dibasic Derivatives of Phenylcarbamic Acid as Prospective Antibacterial Agents Interacting with Cytoplasmic Membrane.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
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 dressings for prevention of catheter-related blood infections (CRBSI) and rank these antimicrobial dressings for practical consideration.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, earlier relevant meta-analysis and reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dressings for prevention of CRBSI. Two authors independently extracted data from each included RCT according to a predesigned Excel spreadsheet and assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data was analyzed using the WinBUGS (V.1.4.3) and the Stata (V.15.0).
resultsFinally, 35 RCTs involving 8494 patients and evaluating 13 dressings were included. Network meta-analysis showed that transparent dressing may be the best way to prevent CRBSI. Suture and bordered polyurethane dressing might have the lowest risk of CRBSI rate per 1000 catheter-days, and sutureless securement device might lead to the lowest incidence of catheter failure.
conclusionsThis network meta-analysis indicated that transparent dressings may be selected for the prevention of CRBSI in patients with central venous catheters, which is of importance in future research. Although evidence is scant, more attention should be paid to head-to-head comparisons of the most commonly used dressings 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.