Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Dressing for Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter-related colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection using meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Multiple computerized database searches supplemented by manual searches including relevant conference proceedings. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing compared with conventional dressings for prevention of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on patient and catheter characteristics and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Use of a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing resulted in a reduced prevalence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (random effects relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88, p = 0.009). The prevalence of catheter colonization was also markedly reduced in the chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing group (random effects relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.64; p < 0.001). There was significant benefit for prevention of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection, including arterial catheters used for hemodynamic monitoring. Other than in low birth weight infants, adverse effects were rare and minor. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing is beneficial in preventing catheter colonization and, more importantly, catheter-related bloodstream infection and warrants routine use in patients at high risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection and central venous catheter or arterial catheter colonization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".