Cochrane · systematic review · CD013841
Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates
Muhd Helmi, MA, Lai, NM, Van Rostenberghe, H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
NeonatalAMSTAR 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
12
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
4
Included studies
NR
No studies 4 · 33.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 4 · 33.3%Moderate 2 · 16.7%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
CHG‐IPA versus PI for skin preparation during central‐catheter insertion in neonates
Population: neonates that require central line
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trials as absolute rates CHG‐IPA vs PI | RR 1.32 [0.53, 3.25] | 2 studies · 352 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed using absolute rates of infants CHG‐IPA vs PI | RR 1 [0.07, 15.08] | 1 study · 48 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
The proportion of infants or catheters with exit‐site infection, either microbiologically or clinically documented CHG‐IPA vs PI | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous catheters (CVCs) removed in the trial as deemed by the author as the source of infection CHG‐IPA vs PI | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
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) CHG‐IPA vs PI | RR 1.04 [0.24, 4.48] | 2 studies · 352 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All‐cause mortality throughout the hospital admission of the participant (mortality) CHG‐IPA vs PI | RR 0.88 [0.46, 1.68] | 1 study · 304 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
CHG‐IPA versus CHG‐A for skin preparation during central‐catheter insertion in neonates
Population: neonates that require central line
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | RR 0.8 [0.34, 1.87] | 1 study · 106 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Central‐line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | RR 1.14 [0.34, 3.84] | 1 study · 106 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
The proportion of infants or catheters with exit‐site infection, either microbiologically or clinically documented CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
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) CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | RR 0.91 [0.26, 3.19] | 1 study · 106 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
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) CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | RR 0.98 [0.47, 2.03] | 1 study · 106 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
All‐cause mortality throughout the hospital admission of the participant CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |