Are we certain that chlorhexidine gluconate bathing is not beneficial in reducing central line associated blood stream infections among children with cancer or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. The germicidal effect, biosafety and mechanical properties of antibacterial resin composite in cavity filling.Heliyon · 2023
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Are we certain that chlorhexidine gluconate bathing is not beneficial in deducing central line associated blood stream infections among children with cancer or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?2021
• Comment on
  Chlorhexidine gluconate bathing in children with cancer or those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial from the Children's Oncology Group.2021

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as