Trial reportInternational journal of nursing practice2019
Chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not decrease central line-associated bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of nursing practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not decrease central line-associated bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of nursing practice · 2019Trial
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Determining the Effectiveness of Preventive Measures in Reducing Intravenous Injection and Catheter-Related Infections: A Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral line-associated blood stream infections are accompanied by increased mortality and health care costs. The application of different types of dressings in infection control has not been fully investigated to date.
aimTo assess the effects of two different dressing types on central line-associated bloodstream infections.
methodsA randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial was conducted. Central lines were randomly allocated to intervention (chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing, n = 259) and control groups (standard dressing, n = 215). The central line-associated bloodstream infection rate was assessed.
resultsA statistically nonsignificant difference was noted in the overall central line-associated bloodstream infection rates between the two groups. The frequency of dressing changes in the patients with the chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing was significantly lower than that in the patients with a standard dressing. The predominant type of infectious microorganisms isolated from the central line-associated bloodstream infection episodes was Gram-negative bacteria (57.2%). Gram-positive bacteria and fungi were noted at lower percentages (28.5% and 14.3%, respectively).
conclusionThe use of a chlorhexidine gluconate transparent dressing does not decrease the central line-associated bloodstream infection rate, although it decreases the frequency of dressing changes so may save nursing time.
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.