CHG‐IPA vs PI: Central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed using absolute rates of infants
It is very uncertain whether CHG‐IPA changes central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed… compared with PI (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
CHG‐IPA vs PI Central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed using absolute rates of infants · neonates that require central line It is very uncertain whether CHG‐IPA changes central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed… compared with PI (very low certainty). Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1 [0.07, 15.08] | 1 study · 48 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.