Trial reportNursing in critical care2026
Dermatological Safety of Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Dressings in Paediatric Intensive Care: A Randomised Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on 'Dermatological Safety of Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Dressings in Paediatric Intensive Care: A Randomised Clinical Trial'.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheters are essential in paediatric intensive care but are associated with catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) and skin complications. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings may reduce infection risk; however, concerns remain regarding their dermatological safety in vulnerable paediatric populations.
aimTo evaluate the dermatological safety of CHG-impregnated dressings in critically ill paediatric patients requiring central venous catheters and to explore their impact on catheter-related outcomes. STUDY
designA single-blind, prospective randomised clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary paediatric intensive care unit. Within routine clinical practice, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a conventional transparent dressing or a dressing incorporating a 2% CHG gel pad. The primary outcome was the occurrence of tegumentary alterations at the catheter insertion site. Secondary outcomes included CRBSI incidence and catheter maintenance variables.
resultsSkin alterations were identified in 14.0% of patients, with no significant differences between groups (16.8% vs. 11.2%; p = 0.202). However, dermatological alterations occurred at a significantly younger age in the CHG group (6.5 ± 4.8 vs. 46.0 ± 43.2 months; p = 0.003), with a similar pattern for pruritus. Multivariable analysis showed a significant interaction between dressing type and age, indicating age-dependent dermatological responses. CHG dressings were associated with fewer dressing changes and longer intervals between replacements. CRBSI incidence was lower in the CHG group (2.4% vs. 18.4%; p < 0.001), although this was a secondary outcome.
conclusionsCHG-impregnated dressings showed an acceptable dermatological safety profile. Their use was associated with improved catheter-related outcomes, although skin reactions occurred at younger ages. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: CHG dressings may support safer catheter management but require careful dermatological monitoring in infants. These findings may help inform dressing selection and catheter care strategies in paediatric intensive care settings where infection prevention and skin integrity must be balanced.
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.