SynthesisJournal of health, population, and nutrition2024
Improving central venous catheter care with chlorhexidine gluconate dressings: evidence from a systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compare the safety and efficacy of integrated securement device versus suture securement for centrally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Complications of tunneled central venous catheter placement: a narrative review of risks, prevention, and management strategies.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) is a critical priority in the clinical management of central venous catheters (CVCs). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate antibacterial dressings in the context of CVC care.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase et al. databases up to May 28, 2024. The search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate antibacterial dressings on CVC-related outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThe final analysis included 14 RCTs involving a total of 8920 patients with CVCs, with participants divided into a chlorhexidine antibacterial dressing group (n = 4731) and a control group (n = 4189). The chlorhexidine dressing group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of CRBSI compared to the control group, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.64, P < 0.001. The chlorhexidine dressing group also showed a significant decrease in bacterial colonization, with an RR of 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.55, P < 0.001. Assessment of publication bias through funnel plot asymmetry and Egger's test revealed no significant bias in the included studies (all P > 0.05).
conclusionsThere is a notable reduction in the incidence of CRBSI and bacterial colonization in patients with CVCs through the application of chlorhexidine gluconate dressings. Given the compelling evidence, the integration of these dressings into standard nursing care protocols for the management of CVCs is advocated.
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.