Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the studies used in the meta-analysis

From: Impact of catheter antimicrobial coating on species-specific risk of catheter colonization: a meta-analysis

Study

CVC type

Study double-blinded?

Guidewire exchange permitted?

More than one study CVC permitted per patient?

Proportion of withdrawals or dropouts

Intention to treat analysis reported?

Goldschmidt et al. 1995 [10]

Silver vs standard

--

no

yes

12.4%

no

Bach et al. 1996 [11]

CHSS vs. standard

--

no

no

--

no

Ciresi et al. 1996 [12]

CHSS vs. standard

--

yes

yes

5.4%

no

van Heerden et al. 1996 [13]

CHSS vs. standard

--

no

no

11.5%

no

Maki et al. 1997 [5]

CHSS vs. standard

yes

yes

yes

8.8%

no

Heard et al. 1998 [7]

CHSS vs. standard

--

yes

yes

15.6%

no

Bach et al 1999 [14]

Silver vs standard

--

yes

no

13%

no

Collin et al. 1999 [15]

CHSS vs. standard

--

yes

yes

2.1%

no

Hannan et al. 1999 [16]

CHSS vs. standard

no

no

yes

--

no

Marik et al. 1999 [17]

CHSS vs. standard and MR vs. standard

no

no

no

5.8%

no

Sheng et al. 2000 [18]

CHSS vs. standard

yes

no

yes

--

no

Jaeger et al. 2001 [19]

Benzalkonium chloride vs. standard

no

no

no

--

no

Corral et al. 2003 [20]

Silver vs standard

no

yes

yes

19.8%

no

Brun-Buisson et al. 2004 [21]

CHSS vs standard

yes

yes

yes

8.6%

no

Leon et al. 2004 [22]

MR vs. standard

no

no

no

21.1%

yes

Yucel et al. 2004 [23]

Miconazole-rifampicin vs. standard

no

no

no

29.4%

no

Dunser et al. 2005 [24]

Silver vs standard

no

no

no

--

no

Rupp et al. 2005 [8]

CHSS vs. standard

yes

yes

no

9.4%

yes

Osma et al. 2006 [25]

CHSS vs. standard

--

no

no

0%

yes

Kalfon et al. 2007 [26]

Silver vs. standard

no

no

yes

19.2%

no

Raad et al.1997 [9]

MR vs. standard

no

no

yes

10.7%

no

  1. CVC (central venous catheter); CHSS (chlorhexidine - silver sulfadiazine); MR (minocycline-rifampin); “-” not reported.