Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters: Clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Clinical, biochemical and/or microbiological methods
Impregnated catheters showed no clear difference in clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Identified by clinical, biochemical… compared with non‐impregnated catheters (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters Clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Identified by clinical, biochemical and/or microbiological methods · adult patients who required central venous catheters Impregnated catheters showed no clear difference in clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Identified by clinical, biochemical… compared with non‐impregnated catheters (moderate certainty). Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter‐related infections in adults (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1 [0.88, 1.13] | 12 studies · 3686 participants | Moderate |
Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters Clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Clinical, biochemical and/or microbiological methods · Adult patients who required central venous catheters Impregnated catheters showed no clear difference in clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Clinical, biochemical and/or… compared with non‐impregnated catheters (moderate certainty). Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter‐related infections in adults (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD007878.PUB2, superseded | RR 1 [0.88, 1.13] | 12 studies · 3686 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter‐related infections in adults 2016 · 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.