Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters

Open access
Lorente, Leonardo, Henry, Christophe, Martín, María M, Jiménez, Alejandro, Mora, María L·2005·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: Central venous catheterization is commonly used in critically ill patients and may cause different complications, including infection. Although there are many studies about CVC-related infection, very few have analyzed it in detail. The objective of this study was to analyze the incidence of catheter-related local infection (CRLI) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) with central venous catheters (CVCs) according to different access sites. Methods: This is a prospective and observational study, conducted in a 24-bed medical surgical intensive care unit of a 650-bed university hospital. All consecutive patients admitted to the ICU during 3 years (1 May 2000 and 30 April 2003) were included. Results: The study included 2,018 patients. The number of CVCs and days of catheterization duration were: global, 2,595 and 18,999; subclavian, 917 and 8,239; jugular, 1,390 and 8,361; femoral, 288 and 2,399. CRLI incidence density was statistically higher for femoral than for jugular (15.83 versus 7.65, p < 0.001) and subclavian (15.83 versus 1.57, p < 0.001) accesses, and higher for jugular than for subclavian access (7.65 versus 1.57, p < 0.001). CRBSI incidence density was statistically higher for femoral than for jugular (8.34 versus 2.99, p = 0.002) and subclavian (8.34 versus 0.97, p < 0.001) accesses, and higher for jugular than for subclavian access (2.99 versus 0.97, p = 0.005). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the order for punction, to minimize the CVC-related infection risk, should be subclavian (first order), jugular (second order) and femoral vein (third order).

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 · 10.1186/cc3824

Cites

40 of 40 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

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Lorente, L., Henry, C., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L.
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2005-09-28
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
R631-5
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1807941019
Cited by
307
References
40
FWCI
16.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc3824
The paper
Lorente, L., Henry, C., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L. (2005). Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3824

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.