systematic_reviews

 
Text Version
 
Site Map
Printer Friendly Version
   
 
 

CPRN Systematic Review Central Line Dressings

Table 4 Summary of transparent versus gauze dressings
Author Study type Study alloc Mean duration Study size Dress type Dress change Analysis method Insert site culture Blood culture Catheter tip culture Local inflam CRS CRI Other
Brandt
1996		 experimental R 22.3
21.7		 101 OP 3000
G		 OW
OD		 z score 1 tail
K\Meier
MWhitney		 no sign no sign diff no sign diff - no sign diff - cost comp OP3000<G
Moro
1994		 cohort R 8.5 -
12.8		 607 T
G		 NI
2 - 3days		 Pearson
Odds ratio
CI 95%		 56.5
10.8-296		 - - - - p< 0.0017
G < T		  
Shivnan
1991		 experimental R NI 98 Tg
G		 4th day
OD		 chi2
t test
Fisher		 not sign no sign diff - - nil - cost comp
Tg<G
Conly
1989		 comp R 13.5
17.9		 79 OP
G		 2nd dail
2nd dail		 chi2 t test
Fishers
MWhitney		 p <0.01
G < T		 - - - p <0.015
G < T		 p <0.002
G < T		 20 variables
to predict CRS\CRI
Wheeler
1986		 comp NI 14.5
16.4		 63 T
G		 OW
3 per wk		 percent - - - - - T - 0%
G- 4.25%		 cost comp
similar
Palidar
1982		 comp All

17.8

 32 OP
G		 OW
TW		 percent - - - - - 1.00%
0.60%		 cost comp OP<G

Return to CPRN Systematic Review Central Line Dressings


Last Updated on 25/06/1999
By Roy Sneddon

Last revised: 01 Jan 1970   URL:http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/cvl/clvtbl4.php
Copyright ©  The Joanna Briggs Institute 2006