ArticleLe infezioni in medicina2023
Disinfectant caps
Article in Le infezioni in medicina, 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, 0 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
19 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. Different studies suggest that the use of disinfectant caps (DCs) significantly reduces the rate of CRBSIs. The first purpose of this study is to analyze, through an Methods: A know concentration of thirteen different microorganisms was incubated with the sponge drenched in antimicrobial fluid inside DCs and cultured through several assays to investigate the disinfectant effectiveness of some commercially available caps. Disinfectant properties were evaluated under two different conditions: baseline (DCs placed on the needle-free connectors (NFCs) and stress test (DCs directly applied to the catheter hub). Results: Both manufacturers overcame the basal tests (fourteen different assays). Regarding stress tests: the only significant bacterial load was found for Conclusions: Our results confirm what was reported in BD PureHub™ datasheet and add data not previously shown by ICU Medical™. Moreover, no difference was observed between the two manufacturers products: the use of both DCs on NFCs was able to reclaim the catheter lumen. These findings support the routine use of DCs with NFCs, as part of a structured bundle of interventions, to reduce the incidence of CRBSIs.
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.