↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the efficacy of three topical antiseptic solutions for the prevention of catheter colonization: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the efficacy of three topical antiseptic solutions for the prevention of catheter colonization: a multicenter randomized controlled study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1890-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideto Yasuda, Masamitsu Sanui, Takayuki Abe, Nobuaki Shime, Tetsuya Komuro, Junji Hatakeyama, Shohei Matsukubo, Shinji Kawano, Hiroshi Yamamoto, Kohkichi Andoh, Ryutaro Seo, Kyo Inoue, Eiichiro Noda, Nobuyuki Saito, Satoshi Nogami, Kentaro Okamoto, Ryota Fuke, Yasuhiro Gushima, Atsuko Kobayashi, Toru Takebayashi, Alan Kawarai Lefor, for Japanese Society of Education for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care (JSEPTIC) Clinical Trial Group

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of three antiseptic solutions [0.5%, and 1.0% alcohol/chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 10% aqueous povidone-iodine (PVI)] for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients from 16 intensive care units in Japan. Adult patients undergoing central venous or arterial catheter insertions were randomized to have one of three antiseptic solutions applied during catheter insertion and dressing changes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of catheter colonization, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Of 1132 catheters randomized, 796 (70%) were included in the full analysis set. Catheter-tip colonization incidence was 3.7, 3.9, and 10.5 events per 1000 catheter-days in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and PVI groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Pairwise comparisons of catheter colonization between groups showed a significantly higher catheter colonization risk in the PVI group (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: hazard ratio, HR 0.33 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.12-0.95], p = 0.04; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.13-0.93], p = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses including all patients by multiple imputations showed consistent quantitative conclusions (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.34, p = 0.03; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CRBSI between groups. Both 0.5% and 1.0% alcohol CHG are superior to 10% aqueous PVI for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization. Japanese Primary Registries Network; No.: UMIN000008725 Registered on 1 September 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 12%
Other 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 62 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Engineering 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 63 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,335,366
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,143
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,183
of 447,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#37
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.