FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2292623170> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2292623170 endingPage "1121" @default.
• W2292623170 startingPage "1121" @default.
• W2292623170 abstract "Sir,We read with interest the article by Bilir et al.[1] as well as its associated conference abstract[2] reporting a clinical trial of chlorhexidine, octenidine, and povidone-iodine for skin antisepsis with the purpose of preventing vascular catheter-related infections. The authors report that chlorhexidine is significantly better than the other two antiseptics in preventing catheter-related sepsis and catheter-related colonization. However, in our opinion, the study has several potential limitations that remain unaddressed. Therefore, we would like to ask the authors for clarification.First, the product specifications are unclear. It has not been stated whether the investigated products are alcohol- or water-based antiseptics. It is well-known that alcohol-containing products are superior to water-based products, especially concerning the immediate microbicidal effect that is important at the point of vascular catheter insertion. To really compare the efficacy of the different active ingredients — chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, and octenidine dihydrochloride — it should be ensured that all of them are applied in the same vehicle. Comparing water-based with alcohol-based products results in a serious bias favoring the latter.[3,4] Furthermore, for octenidine dihydrochloride, there is no information provided concerning the applied concentration. Without this, it is impossible to compare the different active ingredients. Second, the clinical criteria used to diagnose catheter-related colonization and catheter-related sepsis, remain unclear. The diagnosis of catheter colonization requires quantitative culture of the catheter tip.[5] Cultures of the skin surrounding the catheter insertion site, as specified in the authors’ “Methods section”, are not adequate to diagnose catheter colonization.[5] Without clearly prespecified criteria, as part of a study's “Methods section”, it remains unclear as to the kind of infections the patients exactly had, and whether they were relevant in the context of skin antisepsis.Third, questions concerning the statistical analyses of study outcomes remain. The overall number of patients in the study is rather small, with a total of 57 patients (n = 19 per treatment arm). Additionally, although it is reported that a total of 109 catheters were studied, no information is provided concerning the distribution of multiple catheters and arterial or central venous catheters in the different treatment arms. Furthermore, the numbers of outcome events have not been specified. Only percentages of catheter-related sepsis and catheter-related colonization for each group are provided, but it remains unclear, whether these percentages apply to the number of patients in each group or to the number of catheters. Assuming that the outcome events were counted per group (e.g., 2 events per 19 patients), we have recalculated the statistics of this trial, using Fisher's exact test, and we did not find a statistically significant difference between the chlorhexidine and the octenidine groups, neither for catheter colonization nor for catheter-related sepsis.It has been demonstrated in several clinical settings that octenidine dihydrochloride is an effective antiseptic that can be used for the prevention of catheter-related infections,[6,7,8] and that it is at least equal to chlorhexidine concerning its antimicrobial properties.[9,10] Therefore, we request the authors to address our remarks, while taking relevant literature into account.Financial support and sponsorshipNil.Conflicts of interestMichael Braun and Jorg Siebert are employees of Schulke & Mayr GmbH, Germany." @default.
• W2292623170 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2292623170 creator A5084812966 @default.
• W2292623170 creator A5088414759 @default.
• W2292623170 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2292623170 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2292623170 title "Questions concerning Chlorhexidine, octenidine, or povidone-iodine for catheter-related infections: A randomized controlled trial" @default.
• W2292623170 cites W1988709903 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W1994066619 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2083760736 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2085252968 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2104785426 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2109603174 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2111714894 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2165109593 @default.
• W2292623170 cites W2166356134 @default.
• W2292623170 doi "https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-1995.172848" @default.
• W2292623170 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4755101" @default.
• W2292623170 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26941818" @default.
• W2292623170 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2292623170 type Work @default.
• W2292623170 sameAs 2292623170 @default.
• W2292623170 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2292623170 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2292623170 hasAuthorship W2292623170A5084812966 @default.
• W2292623170 hasAuthorship W2292623170A5088414759 @default.
• W2292623170 hasBestOaLocation W22926231701 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C191897082 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C2777084678 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C2781460226 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C539932907 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C141071460 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C142724271 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C168563851 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C177713679 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C191897082 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C192562407 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C199343813 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C2777084678 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C2781460226 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C539932907 @default.
• W2292623170 hasConceptScore W2292623170C71924100 @default.
• W2292623170 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2292623170 hasLocation W22926231701 @default.
• W2292623170 hasLocation W22926231702 @default.
• W2292623170 hasLocation W22926231703 @default.
• W2292623170 hasLocation W22926231704 @default.
• W2292623170 hasLocation W22926231705 @default.
• W2292623170 hasOpenAccess W2292623170 @default.
• W2292623170 hasPrimaryLocation W22926231701 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2037279111 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2069557956 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2073614423 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2083545145 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2417156411 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2429033381 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2802429509 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W3185696861 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2182124109 @default.
• W2292623170 hasRelatedWork W2189175684 @default.
• W2292623170 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W2292623170 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2292623170 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2292623170 magId "2292623170" @default.
• W2292623170 workType "article" @default.