SynthesisPloS one2021
Has resistance to chlorhexidine increased among clinically-relevant bacteria? A systematic review of time course and subpopulation data.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international randomised controlled trial of a novel antimicrobial dressing for peripheral intravenous catheters (ProP trial).Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Trial
- Oral Hygiene With Neutral Electrolyzed Water and Systemic Therapy Increases Gastric Helicobacter pylori Eradication and Reduces Recurrence.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Trial
- Clinical Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Gargle Combined with Recombinant Bovine Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor Gel in the Treatment of Recurrent Oral Ulcers and Its Effects on Inflammatory Factors, Immune Function, and Recurrence Rate.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2024Trial
- Does alternate-day bathing with 2% chlorhexidine improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of a 3% Chlorhexidine/Ophytrium Mousse and Shampoo in 18 Healthy Dogs.Veterinary dermatology · 2026Article
- Influencing viable oral bacteria in the patient's oral cavity and on the dentist's mask.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Diode Laser Irradiation for Cavity Decontamination: A Pilot In Vitro Study on Antimicrobial Efficacy.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Tackling a global threat: a clinical scenario-based framework for preventing and managingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Dressing Impregnated with Chlorhexidine and Vancomycin for the Prophylaxis of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections-A Randomized Trial.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
- Reviewing the complexities of bacterial biocide susceptibility and in vitro biocide adaptation methodologies.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Review
- The Antimicrobial Effect of a Low-Frequency Square Wave Compared to Chlorhexidine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Does chlorhexidine improve periodontal health and bacterial profiles in patients with special health care needs? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Essential Oil-Based Soap with Clove and Oregano: A Promising Antifungal and Antibacterial Alternative against Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Healthcare as a driver, reservoir and amplifier of antimicrobial resistance: opportunities for interventions.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024Review
- In Vitro and In Silico Studies of the Antimicrobial Activity of Prenylated Phenylpropanoids of Green Propolis and Their Derivatives against Oral Bacteria.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparing the in vitro efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of post-surgical endophthalmitis.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024Article
- S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024Article
- Administration of Clinical COVID-19 Mouthwashing Protocol and Potential Modulation of Pediatric Oral Bacterial Prevalence ofPediatric reports · 2023Article
- In Vitro Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Properties and Bioaccessibility after Oral Digestion of Chemically Characterized Extracts Obtained fromFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Chlorhexidine Resistance or Cross-Resistance, That Is the Question.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlorhexidine (CHX) was introduced for use as an antimicrobial more than 70 years ago. CHX has been and continues to be used broadly for disinfecting surfaces in medical and food service facilities as well as directly on skin of humans and animals. Considering its widespread use over many decades, questions of resistance to CHX have been raised. Additionally, questions of possible coincident resistance to the biocide and resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics have also been raised. A number of important questions remain, including is there consistent evidence of resistance, what is the degree of resistance, especially among clinically isolated microbial strains, and what is the degree of resistance compared to the typical concentrations of the biocide used? Data for microbial species isolated over the last 70+ years were compiled to construct as complete a picture as practical regarding possible resistance, especially among species in which resistance to commonly used antibiotics has been noted to be increasing. This is a compilation and analysis of individual MIC values for CHX reported in the literature, not a compilation of the conclusions individual authors reached. The data were analyzed using straight-forward and robust statistical procedures to detect changes in susceptibility to CHX over time, i.e. linear regression. Linear regression was supplemented with the use of nonlinear least squares regression analysis to detect the presence of population parameters associated with subpopulations of microbial strains which exhibit increased resistance to CHX. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Acinetobacter baumannii were all found to have an increased resistance to CHX over time with the most profound change detected in A. baumannii. Additionally, subpopulations with log-normal distributions were found consistent with the presence of a baseline subpopulation of susceptible strains and a subpopulation with increased resistance to CHX. However, the CHX-resistant subpopulations did not correlate exactly with antibiotic resistance, so details of the relationship remain to be addressed. Increased resistance over time was not detected for Escherichia coli, Enterobacter faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, or Candida albicans, although a subpopulation with greater than baseline resistance to CHX was detected among strains of E. faecalis and C. albicans. A difference in susceptibility to CHX was also detected between methicillin-resistant (MRSA) and methicillin-sensitive (MSSA) S. aureus strains. The levels of resistance to CHX detected were all markedly lower than concentrations routinely used in medical and food service applications. Reaching conclusions regarding the relationship between antibiotic and CHX resistance was complicated by the limited overlap between tests of CHX and antibiotic resistance for several species. The results compiled here may serve as a foundation for monitoring changes in resistance to CHX and possible relationships between the use of CHX and resistance to antibiotics commonly used in clinical medicine.
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.