| Methods |
Single‐centre RCT (Germany) |
| Participants |
People scheduled for cardiac surgery, non‐pregnant, non‐lactating participants over the age of 18 years who were due to receive a CVC. Participants were excluded if there was a history of adverse reactions to silver, sulphonamides, or chlorhexidine, as were those with an immune deficiency. Participants who needed additional intravascular access (with the exception of an arterial line) were also excluded |
| Interventions |
Teicoplanin‐coated CVC versus standard uncoated catheters |
| Outcomes |
Catheter colonization and retention of antibiotic teicoplanin on the catheters |
| Notes |
The authors reported separately the incidence of colonization for subcutaneous and intravenous segments of the catheters. For this review, we took the higher incidences (subcutaneous segments) as our data for meta‐analysis. Sources of funding: not stated |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
The only statement regarding randomization said: “According to the randomization schedule … ” No specific method of sequence generation was mentioned |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
The only statement regarding randomization said: “According to the randomization schedule… ” No details were given about how allocation was performed |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Although the authors stated that "Both types of catheters were identical in appearance", there was no specific statement about blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Microbiological outcomes like catheter colonization |
Unclear risk |
Although the authors stated that "Both types of catheters were identical in appearance", there was no specific statement about blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Clinical outcomes like CRBSI |
Unclear risk |
Although the authors stated that "Both types of catheters were identical in appearance", there was no specific statement about blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Although there was a mention of the number of participants who entered the trial (116 in the intervention group and 117 in the control group), there was no mention of the number that were eventually analyzed and the number of withdrawals with their reasons |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
High risk |
The outcomes specified in the methods, namely, catheter colonization and retention of antibiotics were reported in the Results. However, a major and clinically relevant outcome of bloodstream infection or sepsis (catheter‐related or otherwise) was not included |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
None identified |
