Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

12 questions · 12 findings · 1 reviews

No studies found 4 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 4 · 33.3%Moderate 2 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by… compared with PI (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous catheters (CVC) removed in the trial as deemed by the author as the source of infection (premature central line removal) · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous… compared with CHG‐A (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Chemical burns or contact dermatitis, measured using a scoring system or by clinical judgement as described by the trial author during or after the application of antiseptic solutions (dermatitis) · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in chemical burns or contact dermatitis, measured using a scoring… compared with CHG‐A (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous catheters (CVC) removed in the trial as deemed by the author as the source of infection (premature central line removal) · neonates that require central line

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Chemical burns or contact dermatitis, measured using a scoring system or by clinical judgement as described by the trial author during or after the application of antiseptic solutions (dermatitis) · neonates that require central line

It is very uncertain whether CHG‐IPA changes chemical burns or contact dermatitis, measured using a scoring… compared with PI (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by… compared with CHG‐A (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Central‐line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in central‐line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed by… compared with CHG‐A (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review