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.