Cochrane · systematic review · CD009213
Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter‐related infections
Gavin, NC, Webster, J, Chan, RJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 25%Low 3 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Longer intervals (5‐15 days) (intervention) versus shorter intervals (2‐5 days) (control) between dressing changes for preventing catheter‐related infection in people with central venous access devices
Population: patients with a central venous access device
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Catheter‐related blood stream infection (CRBSI) Longer intervals (5‐15 days) (intervention) vs shorter intervals (2‐5 days) (control) between dressing changes | RR 1.42 [0.4, 4.98] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All‐cause mortality Longer intervals (5‐15 days) (intervention) vs shorter intervals (2‐5 days) (control) between dressing changes | RR 1.06 [0.9, 1.25] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skin damage № of participants: 1587 (4 RCTs) Longer intervals (5‐15 days) (intervention) vs shorter intervals (2‐5 days) (control) between dressing changes | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Pain № of participants: 193 (2 RCTs) Longer intervals (5‐15 days) (intervention) vs shorter intervals (2‐5 days) (control) between dressing changes | RR 0.8 [0.46, 1.38] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |