Summary of findings 1. Two per cent CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) for the prevention of infections in neonates.
| Two per cent CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) for the prevention of infections in neonates | ||||||
| Patient or population: Neonates and caregivers Setting: Neonatal intensive care unit Intervention: 2% CHG Comparison: Alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) | Risk with 2% CHG | |||||
| Incidence of (author‐defined) suspected infections within the first 28 days of life | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
| Incidence of bacteriologically confirmed infections (types of infection as specified by authors) within the first 28 days of life |
Study population | RR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.93) NNTB = 385 | 2932 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate1 | The evidence suggests 2% CHG probably results in a slight reduction in incidence of bacteriologically confirmed infections (types of infection as specified by authors) within the first 28 days of life ‐ all infections (however, rates of participant contact differed significantly in the two groups and this is likely to have affected the outcomes). |
|
| 134 per 1000 | 106 per 1000 (89 to 125) | |||||
| All‐cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
| All‐cause mortality from the 8th to 28th day of life (late neonatal death) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1We downgraded by one level for serious risk of bias due to study limitations.