Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34411140›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Has resistance to chlorhexidine increased among clinically-relevant bacteria? A systematic review of time course and subpopulation data.

Stephen Buxser

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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 · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephen BuxserSelect Bio Consult, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1880-8855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Acinetobacter baumanniiChlorhexidineDisinfectantsDrug Resistance, MicrobialEnterobacterEscherichia coliHumansKlebsiella pneumoniaeMethicillinMethicillin ResistanceMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureusChlorhexidineDisinfectantsMethicillin

Identifiers

PMID34411140
PMCPMC8376095
OpenAlexW3196174526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.