ArticlePloS one2023
Chlorhexidine bathing in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcerns regarding potential risk of dermal irritation have led to the exclusion of NICU patients from the recommendation regarding the use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) wash for daily skin cleansing to reduce bloodstream infections. Our aim was to assess the safety of 2% CHG bathing in NICU patients.
methodsThe regulator required a stepwise study enrollment to three successive groups: term infants, followed by near-term and pre-term infants. For comparison, we used a cohort of matched controls. A propensity score-adjusted regression model was used to compare the groups.
interventionInfants were bathed thrice-weekly with 2% CHG-impregnated washcloths. Participant's skin was examined daily.
resultsOver a total of 661 days of treatment: 384,129, and 148 days for the term, near-term and pre-term groups, respectively, no skin reactions were observed. The intervention group was generally sicker, however, bloodstream infections were similar between the groups.
conclusionFor infants >30 weeks and >3 days old, 2% CHG bathing was safe. Large multicenter studies are urgently needed to establish the effectiveness of this practice in the NICU.
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.