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

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.001, hdl.handle.net/1765/108754
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

Voor in 't holt, A.F, Helder, K, MScN, Vos, M.C, Schafthuizen, L, Sülz, S, van den Hoogen, A, & Ista, E. (2018). Corrigendum to ‘Antiseptic barrier cap effective in reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis’. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 84, 79–80. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.001