Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 571

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters in Preventing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-analysis

Veenstra, David L., Saint, Sanjay, Saha, Somnath, Lumley, Thomas, Sullivan, Sean D.·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Central venous catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine have recently been introduced for the prevention of catheter-related infections. However, there remains some uncertainty regarding the efficacy of these catheters because of conflicting reports in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheters in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. DATA SOURCES: Studies identified from a computerized search of the MEDLINE database from January 1966 to January 1998, reference lists of identified articles, and queries of principal investigators and the catheter manufacturer. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheters with nonimpregnated catheters were included. The outcomes assessed were catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection confirmed by catheter culture. DATA EXTRACTION: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for catheter colonization and included a total of 2611 catheters. Eleven studies with a total of 2603 catheters met the inclusion criteria for catheter-related bloodstream infection. Most patients in these studies were from groups considered to be at high risk for catheter-related infections. Summary statistics were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel methods under a fixed-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The summary odds ratio for catheter colonization was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.54; P<.001), indicating a significant decrease in catheter colonization associated with impregnated catheters. The studies examining the outcome of primary interest, catheter-related bloodstream infection, had a summary odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.84; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Central venous catheters impregnated with a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine appear to be effective in reducing the incidence of both catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection in patients at high risk for catheter-related infections.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.281.3.261

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 571

Metadata

Authors
Veenstra, D. L., Saint, S., Saha, S., Lumley, T., & Sullivan, S. D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-01-20
Volume
281
Issue
3
Pages
261
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1981869010
Cited by
571
References
2
FWCI
59.92
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: Efficacy of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters in Preventing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.281.3.261
The paper
Veenstra, D. L., Saint, S., Saha, S., Lumley, T., & Sullivan, S. D. (1999). Efficacy of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters in Preventing Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.3.261

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.