-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Leaves of the Australian tea tree plant were used traditionally by First Nations Australians for treating wounds, burns, and insect bites. Tea tree oil, the essential...
Leaves of the Australian tea tree plant were used traditionally by First Nations Australians for treating wounds, burns, and insect bites. Tea tree oil, the essential oil steam-distilled from , is well-known for its medicinal properties, the evidence for most applications however is limited. This review aimed to critically appraise evidence from clinical trials examining the therapeutic efficacy and safety of tea tree oil on outcomes. Randomized controlled trials with participants of any age, gender, or health status, comparing tea tree oil to any control were included, without limit on publication date. Electronic databases were searched on 12 August 2022 with additional records sourced from article reference sections, reviews, and industry white papers. Risk of bias was assessed by two authors independently using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 1.0 tool. Results were summarized and synthesized thematically. Forty-six articles were eligible from the following medical fields ( = 18, = 9, = 9, = 6, = 3; and = 1). Results indicate that oral mouthwashes with 0.2%-0.5% tea tree oil may limit accumulation of dental plaque. Gels containing 5% tea tree oil applied directly to the periodontium may aid treatment of periodontitis as an adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing. More evidence is needed to confirm the benefits of tea tree oil for reducing acne lesions and severity. Local anti-inflammatory effects on skin, if any, also require further elucidation. Topical tea tree oil regimens show similar efficacy to standard treatments for decolonizing the body from methicillin-resistant , although intra-nasal use of tea tree oil may cause irritation to mucous membranes. Tea tree oil with added iodine may provide an effective treatment for lesions in young children. More evidence on efficacy of tea tree oil-based eyelid wipes for mite control are needed. Side effects were reported in 60% of included studies and were minor, except where tea tree oil was applied topically in concentrations ≥ 25%. Overall, the quality of research was poor to modest and higher quality trials with larger samples and better reporting are required to substantiate potential therapeutic applications of tea tree oil. PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021285168].
PubMed: 37033604
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1116077 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Dec 2020To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies (randomized controlled and quasi-experimental trials) with the following criteria: patients with short- or long-term catheters; CHG dressings were used in the intervention group and nonantimicrobial dressings in the control group; CRBSI was an outcome. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled risk ratios (pRRs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test and the Cochran Q statistic.
RESULTS
In total, 20 studies (18 randomized controlled trials; 15,590 catheters) without evidence of publication bias and mainly performed in intensive care units (ICUs) were included. CHG dressings significantly reduced CRBSIs (pRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.87), independent of the CHG dressing type used. Benefits were limited to adults with short-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including onco-hematological patients. For long-term CVCs, CHG dressings decreased exit-site/tunnel infections (pRR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.64). Contact dermatitis was associated with CHG dressing use (pRR, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.09-12.70); especially in neonates and pediatric populations in whom severe reactions occurred. Also, 2 studies evaluated and did not find CHG-acquired resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
CHG dressings prevent CRBSIs in adults with short-term CVCs, including patients with an onco-hematological disease. CHG dressings might reduce exit-site and tunnel infections in long-term CVCs. In neonates and pediatric populations, proof of CHG dressing effectiveness is lacking and there is an increased risk of serious adverse events. Future studies should investigate CHG effectiveness in non-ICU settings and monitor for CHG resistance.
Topics: Adult; Bandages; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Child; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Sepsis
PubMed: 32935659
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.356 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2021This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Combination of toothbrushing and chlorhexidine compared with exclusive use of chlorhexidine to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature, PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Scopus, LIVIVO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenThesis, and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations databases were used. Only randomized controlled trials without restrictions on the year or language of publication were included. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model estimated the combined relative risk (RR). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Initially, 2,337 studies were identified, of which 4 were considered in the systematic review and 3 in the meta-analysis (total sample: 796 patients). The studies were published between 2009 and 2017. All eligible studies had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the risk of VAP was 24% lower in patients receiving chlorhexidine combined with toothbrushing than in those receiving chlorhexidine alone (RR: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.06), with moderate certainty of evidence and without statistical significance. In conclusion, considering the limitations of this study, a standard protocol for the prevention of VAP is not yet recommended. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw strong conclusions. However, considering that toothbrushing is a simple intervention, it should be a common practice in mechanically ventilated patients, especially among patients with coronavirus disease.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 34133659
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2659 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Jun 2020It has been shown that the risk of developing oral cancer is closely related to the intensity and duration of exposure to alcohol and tobacco. Even so, the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It has been shown that the risk of developing oral cancer is closely related to the intensity and duration of exposure to alcohol and tobacco. Even so, the use of mouthwashes with alcohol in their compositions and the increased risk of oral cancer has been a source of controversy for decades.
OBJECTIVE
This study proposes a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature, to assess the possible relationship between the use of mouthwashes with alcohol and the development of oral and pharyngeal cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was done using the Medline and PubMed databases. Exclusion criteria were as follows: articles published in languages other than English or Spanish, systematic reviews, and expert opinions. No limitations were used for publication date.
RESULTS
A total of 14 articles were obtained, 11 case-control studies and 3 clinical trials. Three case-control studies found no statistically significant evidence between the relationship of mouthwash use and oral cancer and the remaining 8 case-control studies found statistically significant evidence. The 3 clinical trials observed a relationship between the use of mouthwashes with alcohol and the possibility of developing cancer due to the genotoxicity and mutagenic capacity of alcohol in chronic contact with oral tissues and mucous membranes. The meta-analysis resulted in an OR = 1.480 and a P-value = .161 (95% CI: 0.855; P-value = 2.561) for the analysis of studies of cancer risk and consumption of mouthwashes with alcohol and OR = 1.057 0.364 (95% CI: 0.951; P-value = 1.174) for studies that related the risk of cancer and mouthwash use without taking into account the presence of alcohol.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no sufficient evidence to accept the proposition that the use of mouthwashes containing alcohol can influence the development of oral cancer.
Topics: Carcinogenesis; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 32473798
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101407 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2019Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the role of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter (CVC) related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the role of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter (CVC) related complications, but the results remained inconsistent, updated meta-analyses on this issue are warranted.
METHODS
A meta-analysis on the RCTs comparing Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing versus other dressing or no dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related complications was performed. A comprehensive search of major databases was undertaken up to 30 Dec 2018 to identify related studies. Pooled odd ratio (OR) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity, and funnel plot and Egger test was used to identify the publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 12 RCTs with 6028 patients were included. The Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings provided significant benefits in reducing the risk of catheter colonization (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.58), decreasing the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.85). Subgroup analysis indicated that the Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings were conducive to reduce the risk of catheter colonization and CRBSI within the included RCTs with sample size more than 200, but the differences weren't observed for those with sample less than 200. No publication bias was observed in the Egger test for the risk of CRBSI.
CONCLUSIONS
Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing is beneficial to prevent CVC-related complications. Future studies are warranted to assess the role and cost-effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31096918
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4029-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral hygiene care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 December 2015), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 December 2015), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 17 December 2015), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 17 December 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013) and VIP Database (January 2012 to 4 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 17 December 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 RCTs (6016 participants). There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing; powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of oral care solutions. We assessed the overall risk of bias as low in five trials (13%), high in 26 trials (68%), and unclear in seven trials (18%). We did not consider the risk of bias to be serious when assessing the quality of evidence (GRADE) for VAP incidence, but we downgraded other outcomes for risk of bias.High quality evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 25% to about 19% (RR 0.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.61 to 0.89, P = 0.002, I = 31%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (95% CI 10 to 33), which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP would be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.18, I = 0%, 15 RCTs, 2163 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence), or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.We are uncertain as to the effects of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost.Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias), and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P < 0.001, I = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
OHC including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 25% to about 19%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Child; Chlorhexidine; Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 27778318
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub3 -
World Journal of Surgery May 2020Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection (SSI) and the incidence of skin adverse events do not reach a consistent statement and conclusion. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative surgical site infection and the incidence of corresponding skin adverse events.
METHOD
Substantial studies related to "skin antiseptic" and "surgical site infection" were consulted on PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CNKI. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative SSI. The secondary outcome was associated with skin adverse events. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies were included, including 29,006 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.77; p < 0.00001, I = 57%). Further subgroup analysis showed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI in clean surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), I = 28%) and clean-contaminated surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.73; p < 0.00001, I = 43%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI, especially for the clean-contaminated surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31996985
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05384-7 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2014Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. These... (Review)
Review
Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. These evidence-based guidelines have been produced after a systematic review of published studies on infection prevention and control interventions aimed at reducing the transmission of MDR-GNB. The recommendations are stratified by type of infection prevention and control intervention and species of MDR-GNB and are presented in the form of 'basic' practices, recommended for all acute care facilities, and 'additional special approaches' to be considered when there is still clinical and/or epidemiological and/or molecular evidence of ongoing transmission, despite the application of the basic measures. The level of evidence for and strength of each recommendation, were defined according to the GRADE approach.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacterial Typing Techniques; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Disease Outbreaks; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Hand Hygiene; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Infection Control; Risk Factors
PubMed: 24329732
DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12427 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin
PubMed: 27410189
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010140.pub2 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Feb 2023Salvadora persica L., also known as miswak, is an indigenous plant most prevalent in the Middle Eastern, some Asian, and African countries. It has medicinal and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Salvadora persica L., also known as miswak, is an indigenous plant most prevalent in the Middle Eastern, some Asian, and African countries. It has medicinal and prophylactics function for numerous illnesses, including periodontal disease. Various trials, apart from World Health Organization encouragement have contributed to the production and use of S. persica in extract form in the formulation of mouthwash. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effect of Salvadora persica-extract mouthwash and chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash for anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis functions.
METHODS
Using the PRISMA 2020 Protocol, a systematic search of the publications was undertaken from the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholars for randomized control trials published through 31st January 2022 to determine the effectiveness of Salvadora persica-extract mouthwash relative to chlorhexidine gluconate as anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties.
RESULTS
A total of 1809 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review while only sixteen were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effects of standardized mean difference and 95% CI were 0.89 [95% CI 0.09 to 1.69] with a χ statistic of 2.54, 15 degrees of freedom (p < 0.00001), I = 97% as anti-plaque function and 95% CI were 0.12 [95% CI -0.43 to 0.67] with a χ statistic of 0.68 with 10 degree of freedom (p < 0.00001), I = 89% as anti-gingivitis.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that Salvadora persica-extract mouthwash causes a significant reduction of plaque and gingival inflammation. While the improvement is inferior to chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash, S. persica-extract mouthwash may be considered as a herbal alternative to the user pursuing periodontal care with natural ingredients.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Salvadoraceae; Plant Extracts; Chlorhexidine; Gingivitis
PubMed: 36283639
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2022.115863