The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters. Gauze, a transparent polyurethane dressing, and an iodophor-transparent dressing
Abstract
Four dressing regimens for peripheral venous catheters were studied in a prospective randomized clinical trial with 2088 Teflon catheters: (1) sterile gauze, replaced every other day, and three dressings left on for the lifetime of the catheter; (2) gauze; (3) a transparent polyurethane dressing; and (4) an iodophor-transparent dressing. The four dressings provided comparable coverage, except moisture accumulated more frequently under the transparent dressings (26% to 28% vs 20% to 21%). Cutaneous colonization under the dressing was low level and comparable with all four dressings (range, 10(0.58) to 10(0.70) colony-forming units). The rate of local catheter-related infection (greater than or equal to 15 colony-forming units) was also low and did not differ significantly (range, 4.6% to 5.9%); no catheter caused bacteremia. Stepwise logistic multivariate analysis showed cutaneous colonization of the insertion site (relative risk [RR] of infection, 3.86), contamination of the catheter hub (RR, 3.78), moisture under the dressing (RR, 2.48), and prolonged catheterization (RR, 1.75) to be significant risk factors for catheter-related infection. These data indicate that it is not cost-effective to redress peripheral venous catheters at periodic intervals; for most patients, either sterile gauze or a transparent dressing can be used and left on until the catheter is removed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infections
O'Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir257 · Cited by 4,699
Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks
Kluytmans, J., van Belkum, A., & Verbrugh, H. (1997) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.10.3.505 · Cited by 2,595
Loveday, H. P., Wilson, J. A., Pratt, R. J., Golsorkhi, M., Tingle, A., Bak, A., Browne, J., Prieto, J., & Wilcox, M. (2014) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/s0195-6701(13)60012-2 · Cited by 1,621
Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter–Related Infections
O’Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Dellinger, E. P., Gerberding, J. L., Heard, S. O., Maki, D. G., Masur, H., McCormick, R. D., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., et al. (2002) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1086/502007 · Cited by 847
Self-citationGuideline for Prevention of Intravascular-Device-Related Infections
Pearson, M. L., & The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (1996) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.2307/30141155 · Cited by 531
Metadata
- Authors
- Maki, D. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1987-11-06
- Volume
- 258
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 2396-2403
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4248620033
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters. Gauze, a transparent polyurethane dressing, and an iodophor-transparent dressing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.258.17.2396
- The paper
- Maki, D. G. (1987). Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters. Gauze, a transparent polyurethane dressing, and an iodophor-transparent dressing. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.258.17.2396
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.