SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2025
Does oral hygiene prevents nosocomial infections in hospitalized patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2025. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of oral hygiene (OH) with chlorhexidine (CHX) on the evolution of nosocomial infections (NI). MATERIAL AND
methodsElectronic searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, VHL, and Grey Literature databases. Randomized clinical trials were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using RoB 2.0. Meta-analyses were carried out comparing patients who did or did not receive OH with CHX (0.05%, 0.12% and 2%) for NI, Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), S. aureus infection (SA), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of hospital stay and Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The certainty of evidence (CE) was evaluated with GRADE approach.
resultsThirteen studies were selected for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. The risk for VAP (RR 0.72 [0.58, 0.90], p=0.003) and NI (RR 0.70 [0.58, 0.83], p<0.001) were lower in patients of the CHX groups compared to controls, independently for [CHX] used for NI (RR≥0.49, p≤0.03). Patients who received CHX 2×/day presented similar risk to control (RR 0.98 [0.75, 1.30], p=0.91); while 3 and 4×/day or more (RR≥0.52, p≤0.002) presented lower risk for NI. Similar risk for SA was observed among groups (RR 0.42 [0.14, 1.26], p=0.12). The average days of hospitalization (p=0.67), ICU stay (p=0.37) and MV (p=0.57) did not differ between the groups. CE ranged from very low to moderate.
conclusionsOH with CHX reduced NI, regardless of concentration, when used 3×/day or more. However, it had no effect against AS and did not reduce length of hospital stay.
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.