Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35048278›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2022

Increasing usage of chlorhexidine in health care settings: blessing or curse? A narrative review of the risk of chlorhexidine resistance and the implications for infection prevention and control.

Bea Van den Poel, Veroniek Saegeman, Annette Schuermans

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Surface Carrier Testing of Hospital Antiseptics AgainstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bea Van den PoelClinical Laboratory and Department of Infection Control, AZ Jan Portaels, Vilvoorde, Belgium. beavandenpoel@hotmail.com.
Veroniek SaegemanDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, AZ Nikolaas, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
Annette SchuermansDepartment of Infection Prevention and Control, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
AZ Sint-Jan · BEKU Leuven · BEVlaamse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecolo · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) is an antiseptic frequently used in hospitals to prevent healthcare-related infections. It is used in different formulations for skin antisepsis, oral care, patient bathing, and hand hygiene. Also, CHG impregnated vascular catheters and wound dressings contribute to increased exposure of hospital germs to this biocide. In the last decade, concerns are rising about decreasing susceptibility of microorganisms to CHG and its potential cross-resistance with antibiotics. This study reviewed the published data regarding the evidence of reduced CHG susceptibility, the cross-resistance with antibiotics, and the implications for infection control for S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa. Despite incongruity in definitions of "resistance," increased CHG minimal inhibitory values of these pathogens have been described, and different mutations encoding for CHG efflux pumps have been identified. Clinical relevance of species with reduced susceptibility to CHG is debatable and cross-resistance with antibiotics remains controversial. However, some studies link the increased usage of CHG to multidrug resistance, and the potential cross-resistance with colistin for K. pneumoniae is of major concern. More research in this matter is necessary. For infection control, it is advisable to use CHG applications only for indications with a clear patient benefit. It is important to follow manufacturer's instructions, and exposure of microorganisms to sub-lethal CHG concentrations should be avoided.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalCross InfectionChlorhexidineDelivery of Health CareEscherichia coliHumansStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineAntimicrobial resistanceChlorhexidine digluconateDisinfectantsSusceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID35048278
OpenAlexW4206453521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.