Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing vs SPU dressings: Catheter‐related blood stream infection
Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection compared with SPU dressings (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing vs SPU dressings Catheter‐related blood stream infection · patients with CVCs Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection compared with SPU dressings (moderate certainty). Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC) (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.65 [0.4, 1.05] | 5 studies · 4876 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC) 2015 · 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.