Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This trial found no evidence of additional benefit of miconazole-rifampicin impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters during neonatal care, compared with standard, non-impregnated catheters.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Ruth Gilbert 1,2,*, Michaela Brown 3, Rita Faria 4, Caroline Fraser 1, Chloe Donohue 3, Naomi Rainford 3, Alessandro Grosso 4, Ajay K Sinha 5, Jon Dorling 6, Jim Gray 7, Berit Muller-Pebody 8, Katie Harron 1, Tracy Moitt 3, William McGuire 9, Laura Bojke 4, Carrol Gamble 3, Sam J Oddie 9,10

1 UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK
2 Health Data Research UK, London, UK
3 Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
4 Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
5 Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
6 Division of Neonatal–Perinatal Medicine, Dalhousie University IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
7 Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
8 National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK
9 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
10 Bradford Neonatology, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document