↓ Skip to main content

Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003827.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Webster, Donna Gillies, Elizabeth O'Riordan, Karen L Sherriff, Claire M Rickard

Abstract

Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate venous access, allowing the intravenous administration of complex drug treatments, blood products and nutritional support, without the trauma associated with repeated venepuncture. However, CVCs are associated with a risk of infection. Some studies have indicated that the type of dressing used with them may affect the risk of infection. Gauze and tape, transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm® and Opsite®, and highly vapour-permeable transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Opsite IV3000®, are the most common types of dressing used to secure CVCs. Currently, it is not clear which type of dressing is the most appropriate. To compare gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane CVC dressings in terms of catheter-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised adults and children. For this third update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (10 May 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, May 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 6 May 2011). All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of dressing type (e.g. gauze and tape versus transparent polyurethane dressings) on CVC-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised patients. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. Six studies were included in earlier versions of the review. In this update two of the previously included papers have been excluded and two new trials have been added. Of these six trials, four compared gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 337) and two compared different transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 126). Catheter-related bloodstream infection was higher in the transparent polyurethane group when compared with gauze and tape; OR 4.19 (95%CI 1.02 to 17.23) however these small trials were at risk of bias so this evidence is graded low quality. There was no evidence of a difference between highly permeable polyurethane dressings and other polyurethane dressings in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection (low quality evidence). No other significant differences were found. We found a four-fold increase in the rate of catheter related blood stream infection when a polyurethane dressing was used to secure the central venous catheter however this research was at risk of bias and the confidence intervals were wide indicating high uncertainty around this estimate; so the true effect could be as small as 2% or as high as 17-fold. More, better quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of gauze and tape versus polyurethane dressings for central venous catheter sites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
France 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 68 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Other 13 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 13 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,921,738
of 13,183,063 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,620
of 10,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,705
of 263,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,183,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 263,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.