Reclaiming narratives of empowerment around Black maternal health: a strengths-based, community-informed focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Research on Black maternal populations often focuses on deficits that can reinforce biases against Black individuals and communities. The research landscape must shift towards a strengths-based approach focused on the protective assets of Black individuals and communities to counteract bias. This study engaged the local Black community using a strengths-based approach to discuss the assets of Black maternal populations and to inform the design of a future clinical trial focused on reducing Black maternal health disparities. DESIGN: Guided by the Theory of Maternal Adaptive Capacity, we conducted three purposive focus group sessions with Black adult community members. The focus groups were semi-structured to cover specific topics, including the strengths of the local community, strengths specific to pregnant community members, how the strengths of community members can support pregnant individuals, and how the strengths of pregnant community members can facilitate a healthy pregnancy. The focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Three focus group sessions were conducted with sixteen female individuals identifying as Black or African American. Central themes include (1) the power of pregnancy and motherhood in Black women, (2) challenging negative perceptions and media representation of Black mothers, (3) recognizing history and reclaiming cultural traditions surrounding birth, and (4) community as the foundation of Black motherhood. CONCLUSION: Black community members identified powerful themes on Black maternal health through a strengths-based lens. These focus groups fostered relationships with the Black community, elucidated possible solutions to improve Black women's health and wellness, and offered direction on our research design and intervention.

Quality of Life Issues Following Breast Cancer Treatment.

Breast surgeons are trained in diagnostic modalities, treatment effectiveness, patient safety, and operative techniques, with emphasis on "the right treatment at the right time for the right patient." But delivering quality breast cancer care means more than achieving good outcomes. Physicians have routinely measured disease-free survival and overall survival to determine success in treating breast cancer. Patients are demanding attention to "quality of life" outcomes as well. As clinicians caring for patients with breast cancer, our focus must shift from early detection to survivorship to re-evaluate our own definition of cure and address the important issues affecting the quality of life of all of our patients.

It Is the Little Things That Matter.

How can you prove that you are providing high-quality care? As a consultant breast surgeon, the author thought it meant doing the right thing to the right patient at the right time. She followed the latest clinical guidelines and audited her complication and mortality rates. However, when she was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at the age of 40 and found herself going through every treatment she prescribed to her patients, she realized that something was missing. She had not been truly focusing on the third factor of quality care-the patient experience. She found out the hard way about what it is really like for cancer patients to cope during treatment and beyond, and it changed her practice for the better. She started adding little things that she knew could make a massive difference to how her patients coped physically, mentally and emotionally with their breast cancer diagnosis. In this article, she shares with you some of the lessons she learned from the other side of the table and hopes you will consider using them to further improve the high-quality service you already provide.

Reflections from a breast surgeon with breast cancer on how to improve cancer care.

Healthcare professionals pride themselves on providing high-quality care for their patients. On the whole, we are very good at offering clinically effective and safe treatments and can benchmark our services against our peers. The one area where many providers fall short, however, is the patient experience. When a consultant breast surgeon was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer, she realised how much she did not know about breast cancer, and how much more healthcare professionals can help patients and their carers cope with a cancer diagnosis, both during treatment and beyond. It is not enough to tell patients what will happen to them. We need to help them physically, mentally and emotionally through every stage of cancer treatment. You can only really learn how to improve the patient experience by asking patients themselves. Here are some of the lessons this consultant learned when she found herself on the other side of the table, and how to use them to improve the care of your own cancer patients.

Skin antisepsis for reducing central venous catheter-related infections.

BACKGROUND: The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition. However, as a foreign object, it is susceptible to colonisation by micro-organisms, which may lead to catheter-related blood stream infection (BSI) and in turn, increased mortality, morbidities and health care costs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.

Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults.

BACKGROUND: The central venous catheter (CVC) is essential in managing acutely ill patients in hospitals. Bloodstream infection is a major complication in patients with a CVC. Several infection control measures have been developed to reduce bloodstream infections, one of which is impregnation of CVCs with various forms of antimicrobials (either with an antiseptic or with antibiotics). This review was originally published in June 2013 and updated in 2016. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding on CVCs in reducing clinically-diagnosed sepsis, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), all-cause mortality, catheter colonization and other catheter-related infections in adult participants who required central venous catheterization, along with their safety and cost effectiveness where data were available. We undertook the following comparisons: 1) catheters with antimicrobial modifications in the form of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding, against catheters without antimicrobial modifications and 2) catheters with one type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with another type of antimicrobial impregnation. We planned to analyse the comparison of catheters with any type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with other antimicrobial modifications, e.g. antiseptic dressings, hubs, tunnelling, needleless connectors or antiseptic lock solutions, but did not find any relevant studies. Additionally, we planned to conduct subgroup analyses based on the length of catheter use, settings or levels of care (e.g. intensive care unit, standard ward and oncology unit), baseline risks, definition of sepsis, presence or absence of co-interventions and cost-effectiveness in different currencies. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Review Group (ACE). In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID SP; 1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. The original search was run in March 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another type of impregnation in adult patients cared for in the hospital setting who required CVCs. We planned to include quasi-RCT and cluster-RCTs, but we identified none. We excluded cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, where appropriate, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included one new study (338 participants/catheters) in this update, which brought the total included to 57 studies with 16,784 catheters and 11 types of impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear, as some studies did not provide this information. Most studies enrolled participants from the age of 18, including patients in intensive care units (ICU), oncology units and patients receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to the catheters that were being assessed having different appearances. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and NNTB of 50 (high-quality evidence). Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 9% (95% CI 12% to 7%), RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) and NNTB of 11 (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to substantial heterogeneity). However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to a suspicion of publication bias), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; high-quality evidence) and catheter-related local infections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.07; 2688 catheters, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to wide 95% CI).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied between studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in ICUs (RR 0.70;95% CI 0.61 to 0.80) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.11) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing rates of CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits regarding catheter colonization varied according to setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. A comparatively smaller body of evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality significantly. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.

Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement.

BACKGROUND: The tubing (administration set) attached to both venous and arterial catheters may contribute to bacteraemia and other infections. The rate of infection may be increased or decreased by routine replacement of administration sets. This review was originally published in 2005 and was updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to identify any relationship between the frequency with which administration sets are replaced and rates of microbial colonization, infection and death. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2012), CINAHL (1982 to June 2012), EMBASE (1980 to June 2012), reference lists of identified trials and bibliographies of published reviews. The original search was performed in February 2004. We also contacted researchers in the field. We applied no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized or controlled clinical trials on the frequency of venous or arterial catheter administration set replacement in hospitalized participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed all potentially relevant studies. We resolved disagreements between the two review authors by discussion with a third review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: catheter-related infection; infusate-related infection; infusate microbial colonization; catheter microbial colonization; all-cause bloodstream infection; mortality; and cost. We pooled results from studies that compared different frequencies of administration set replacement, for instance, we pooled studies that compared replacement ≥ every 96 hours versus every 72 hours with studies that compared replacement ≥ every 48 hours versus every 24 hours. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 26 studies for this updated review, 10 of which we excluded; six did not fulfil the inclusion criteria and four did not report usable data. We extracted data from the remaining 18 references (16 studies) with 5001 participants: study designs included neonate and adult populations, arterial and venous administration sets, parenteral nutrition, lipid emulsions and crystalloid infusions. Most studies were at moderate to high risk of bias or did not adequately describe the methods that they used to minimize bias. All included trials were unable to blind personnel because of the nature of the intervention.No evidence was found for differences in catheter-related or infusate-related bacteraemia or fungaemia with more frequent administration set replacement overall or at any time interval comparison (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.69; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.70). Infrequent administration set replacement reduced the rate of bloodstream infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98). No evidence revealed differences in catheter colonization or infusate colonization with more frequent administration set replacement (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.86, respectively). Borderline evidence suggested that infrequent administration set replacement increased the mortality rate only within the neonatal population (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.36). No evidence revealed interactions between the (lack of) effects of frequency of administration set replacement and the subgroups analysed: parenteral nutrition and/or fat emulsions versus infusates not involving parenteral nutrition or fat emulsions; adult versus neonatal participants; and arterial versus venous catheters. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some evidence indicates that administration sets that do not contain lipids, blood or blood products may be left in place for intervals of up to 96 hours without increasing the risk of infection. Other evidence suggests that mortality increased within the neonatal population with infrequent administration set replacement. However, much the evidence obtained was derived from studies of low to moderate quality.

Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults.

BACKGROUND: The central venous catheter (CVC) is a commonly used device in managing acutely ill patients in the hospital. Bloodstream infections are major complications in patients who require a CVC. Several infection control measures have been developed to reduce bloodstream infections, one of which is CVC impregnated with various forms of antimicrobials (either with an antiseptic or with antibiotics). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effects of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing clinically diagnosed sepsis, established catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG). We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to March 2012), CINAHL (1982 to March 2012) and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another impregnation. We excluded cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CARG. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data where appropriate with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 studies with 16,512 catheters and 11 types of antimicrobial impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide this information. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to different appearances between the catheters assessed. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced CRBSI, with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.73) and NNTB of 50. Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 10% (95% CI 13% to 7%), RR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) and NNTB of 10. However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.13)) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.05)).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied in studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.78)) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.11)) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (TPN)(RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.34)). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in improving such outcomes as CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits in catheter colonization varied according to the setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. Limited evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to significantly reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.

Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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. SEARCH METHODS: 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). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Research with vulnerable families caring for children with life-limiting conditions.

Methodological challenges associated with sensitive research, such as research with vulnerable families, have been well described, but there are few examples of how such challenges have been addressed in specific projects. To help address this gap, we describe how we designed and conducted a qualitative study of 91 members of 29 families caring for children or young people with life-limiting conditions. Although some issues associated with researching sensitive topics were anticipated, others were encountered that were not expected. We discuss insights gained from this study in relation to factors that influence effectiveness of recruitment, the quality of data collection, and the safety of participants and researchers.

Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Gauze and tape or transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm, Opsite or Opsite IV3000 are the most common types of dressing used to secure central venous catheters (CVCs). Currently, there are no clear guidelines as to which type of dressing is the most appropriate. AIMS: To identify whether there are any differences between gauze and tape and/or transparent polyurethane film dressings in the incidence of CVC-related infection, catheter-related sepsis, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material, dressing condition and ease of application in hospitalized patients. METHODS: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Medline, Embase and CancerLit databases were searched to identify any controlled trials comparing the effects of gauze and tape and/or transparent polyurethane dressings on CVCs. Additional references were sought from published and non-published literature. Twenty-three studies were reviewed. Data were extracted independently from each paper by two members of the review team and results compared. Differences were resolved either by consensus or referral to a third person. Authors were contacted for missing information. RESULTS: Of the 23 studies reviewed, 15 were excluded. Of the remaining eight, data were available for meta-analysis from six studies. Of the six included studies, two compared gauze and tape with Opsite IV3000, two compared Opsite with Opsite IV3000, one compared Tegaderm with Opsite IV3000, and one compared Tegaderm with Opsite. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of any difference in the incidence of infectious complications between any of the dressing types compared in this review. Each of these comparisons was based on no more than two studies and all of these studies reported data from a small patient sample. Therefore it is unlikely that any of these comparisons would have had sufficient power to detect any differences between groups.