Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 774

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections by Using Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions During Insertion

Raad, Issam I., Hohn, David C., Gilbreath, B. Joyce, Suleiman, Nabil, Hill, Lou Anne, Bruso, Patricia A., Marts, Kathy, Mansfield, Paul F., Bodey, Gerald P.·1994·Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective: In many hospitals, the only sterile precautions used during the insertion of a nontunneled central venous catheter are sterile gloves and small sterile drapes. We investigated whether the use of maximal sterile barrier (consisting of mask, cap, sterile gloves, gown, and large drape) would lower the risk of acquiring catheter-related infections. Design: Prospective randomized trial. Setting: A 500-bed cancer referral center. Methods: We randomized patients to have their nontunneled central catheter inserted under maximal sterile barrier precautions or control precautions (sterile gloves and small drape only). All patients were followed for 3 months postinsertion or until the catheter was removed, whichever came first. Catheter-related infections were diagnosed by quantitative catheter cultures and/or simultaneous quantitative blood cultures. Results: The 176 patients whose catheters were inserted by using maximal sterile barrier precautions were comparable to the 167 control patients in underlying disease, degree of immuno-suppression, therapeutic interventions, and catheter risk factors for infections (duration and site of catheterization, number of catheter lumen, catheter insertion difficulty, reason for catheter removal). There were a total of four catheter infections in the test group and 12 in the control group (P=0.03, chi-square test). The catheter-related septicemia rate was 6.3 times higher in the control group (P=0.06, Fisher's exact test). Most (67%) of the catheter infections in the control group occurred during the first 2 months after insertion, whereas 25% of the catheter infections in the maximal sterile precautions group occurred during the same period (P<0.01, Fisher's exact test). Cost-benefit analysis showed the use of such precautions to be highly cost-effective. Conclusion: Maximal sterile barrier precautions during the insertion of nontunneled catheters reduce the risk of catheter infection. This practice is cost-effective and is consistent with the practice of universal precautions during an invasive procedure.

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 · 10.1086/646902

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.

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 774

Metadata

Authors
Raad, I. I., Hohn, D. C., Gilbreath, B. J., Suleiman, N., Hill, L. A., Bruso, P. A., Marts, K., Mansfield, P. F., & Bodey, G. P.
Venue
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
Published
1994-04
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
231-238
ISSN
  • 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-6834
OpenAlex
W2013128224
Cited by
774
References
0
FWCI
27.81
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: Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections by Using Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions During Insertion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/646902
The paper
Raad, I. I., Hohn, D. C., Gilbreath, B. J., Suleiman, N., Hill, L. A., Bruso, P. A., Marts, K., Mansfield, P. F., & Bodey, G. P. (1994). Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections by Using Maximal Sterile Barrier Precautions During Insertion. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1086/646902

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.