Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40096554›Full record

ReviewClinical journal of oncology nursing2025

Chlorhexidine Gluconate Treatment Adherence Among Nurses and Patients to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections.

Mika Kuroki, Abigail C Short, Lorinda A Coombs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical journal of oncology nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Mika KurokiMika Kuroki.
Abigail C ShortAbigail C. Short.
Lorinda A CoombsLorinda A. Coombs.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), an antimicrobial topical treatment, reduces central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). However, many barriers exist to CHG use, limiting the benefits of this evidence-based intervention.

objectivesThis review aimed to identify effective CHG interventions to reduce CLABSIs in patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing bone marrow transplantations.

methodsPubMed® and CINAHL® databases were searched for articles published in English between 2014 and 2024 that focused on adults (aged 18 years or older) and evaluated CHG use, barriers to CHG use, and interventions to reduce CLABSI rates.

findingsThis review identified the following three themes: the efficacy of CHG on reducing hospital-acquired infections, barriers to CHG use, and multilevel educational programs that improve rates of CHG use.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalCatheterization, Central VenousCatheter-Related InfectionsChlorhexidineAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidinechlorhexidine gluconatebloodstream infectionscatheter-related infectionschlorhexidine gluconate

Identifiers

PMID40096554
PMCPMC12056876

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.