Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 1 reviews · Wounds

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 100%High 0 · 0%

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing vs SPU dressings

Catheter tip colonisation · patients with CVCs

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing probably leads to lower catheter tip colonisation: compared with SPU dressings (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.58 [0.47, 0.73]
6 studies · 4431 participants
Moderate