ReviewSAGE open nursing
Nurses' Knowledge and Behavior in Hospitals Regarding the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review.
Review in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A sequential mixed-methods study to develop and validate the nursing infection control effectiveness index (NICEI).BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of central line-associated bloodstream infection prevention among intensive care unit nurses in Hebei Province, China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Targeting Bacterial Biofilms on Medical Implants: Current and Emerging Approaches.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are a significant source of hospital-acquired infections, particularly in intensive care units where central venous catheters are frequently used. These infections can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. While various clinical guidelines exist for prevention, the actual knowledge and adherence of nurses to these guidelines vary widely, with limited synthesis available at the systematic review level. Aim: This study aimed to synthesize current evidence on the knowledge, behaviors, and adherence of intensive care unit nurses regarding CLABSI prevention practices. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2018 and 2024 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they assessed ICU nurses' knowledge and practices related to CLABSI prevention. After screening 3,585 articles, nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. Results: Nine full-text studies published between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed. The studies used cross-sectional surveys, cohort designs, and questionnaire validation methods. Most nurses demonstrated moderate knowledge levels, but adherence to prevention guidelines was low, with full compliance reported by only 5% of participants. Key themes included training gaps, institutional variability, and increased infection risk from improper catheter use. Several studies suggested that targeted education and the use of diagnostic tools such as procalcitonin may support improved outcomes. Conclusion: This review highlights a persistent gap between knowledge and adherence to CLABSI prevention practices among ICU nurses. Strengthening education, institutional support, and diagnostic strategies is essential to reduce infection rates and improve patient safety.
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.