90: Comparison of 2% Chlorhexidine in 70% Isopropyl Alcohol with 2% Aqueous Chlorhexidine for Skin Antisepsis Prior to Venepuncture in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Non-Inferiority Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aqueous and alcohol based chlorhexidine solutions are commonly used for skin antisepsis in neonates but their relative efficacy is unknown. To compare the efficacy of 2% aqueous chlorhexidine solution (AQC) vs. 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (ALC) for skin antisepsis prior to venepuncture in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. A total of 199 VLBW neonates (birth weight <1500 g) between two and 28 days of age were randomized to receive skin antisepsis (single application) with either AQC or ALC prior to a venepuncture. Skin swabs were collected pre- and post-antisepsis and processed by ‘swab-wash’ method. Colony forming units (CFU) were quantified up to a maximum of 150 CFU. Primary outcome was the proportion of ‘negative’ post-cleansing skin swabs defined as the presence of ≤15 CFU. Secondary outcomes included reduction in CFU and clearance proportion stratified by type of organism. After cleansing, the site was monitored for adverse reactions for 24 h. Results: There was no difference in the baseline characteristics or any measured outcome between groups (Table 1). The odds ratio for skin clearance using AQC vs. ALC was 1.36 (0.55 to 3.40). Results did not change after excluding infants with ‘negative’ pre-swabs or after adjustment for pre-cleansing CFU. No adverse reactions were noted. The majority of VLBW infants had skin colonization with bacteria in the pre-cleansing swab, with CONS being the most common organism. When used in a standardized manner, both AQC and ALC provided high skin clearance rates and were not significantly different in antisepsis properties.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".