Corrigendum to ‘Antiseptic barrier cap effective in reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis’ [Int J Nurs Stud. 69. (2017) 34-40] (S0020748917300202) (10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.007))

Anne F. Voor in ’t holt, Onno K. Helder, Margreet C. Vos, Laura Schafthuizen, Sandra Sülz, Agnes van den Hoogen, Erwin Ista*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In the meta-analysis we compared two types of ‘barrier caps’ respectively the Curos and the SwabCap. We described that the study of Cameron-Watson (2016) used the Curos barrier cap, however, this is incorrect. Cameron-Watson studied the effectiveness of the Curos barrier cap. This incorrect description has consequences for the subgroup analysis (of the meta-analysis) we have performed. Subgroup analysis showed that the Curos (IRR= 0.47, 95% CI= 0.31 to 0.72) and SwabCap (IRR= 0.72, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.86) were equally effective. See corrected Tables 1 and 2, and Fig. 2 for further details (Supplementary data S3). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.007

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)79-80
Number of pages2
JournalInternational Journal of Nursing Studies
Volume84
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to ‘Antiseptic barrier cap effective in reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis’ [Int J Nurs Stud. 69. (2017) 34-40] (S0020748917300202) (10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.007))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this