↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of chlorhexidine bathing for reducing healthcare associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of chlorhexidine bathing for reducing healthcare associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0073-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eun Young Choi, Dong-Ah Park, Hyun Jung Kim, Jinkyeong Park

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if daily bathing with chlorhexidine decreased hospital-acquired BSIs in critically ill patients. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared daily bathing with chlorhexidine and a control in critically ill patients. This meta-analysis included five RCTs. The overall incidence of measured hospital-acquired BSIs was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group compared to the controls 0.69 (95 % CI 0.55-0.85; P < 0.001; I (2) = 57.7 %). Gram-positive-induced (RR = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.41-0.58; P = 0.000; I (2) = 0.0 %) bacteremias were significantly less common in the chlorhexidine group. The incidence of MRSA bacteremias (RR 0.63; 95 % CI 0.44-0.91; P = 0.006; I (2) = 30.3 %) was significantly lower among patients who received mupirocin in addition to chlorhexidine bathing than among those who did not routinely receive mupirocin. Daily bathing with chlorhexidine may be effective to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired BSIs. However, chlorhexidine bathing alone may be of limited utility in reduction of MRSA bacteremia; intranasal mupirocin may also be required. This meta-analysis has several limitations. Future large-scale international multicenter studies are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 25%
Other 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#13,627,094
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#713
of 1,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,943
of 279,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.