ArticleIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research2013
Chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine: Which solution is more effective on skin colonization in neonates?
Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of different preoperative antiseptics in preventing a risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Different Betadine and Saline Combinations on Microorganisms: An Original Research.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Wound Antiseptics and European Guidelines for Antiseptic Application in Wound Treatment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfection control should be an integrated part of patient care, especially to ensure safety and survival in hospitalized neonates. Although povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution has been used as the most common antiseptic in hospitals of Iran, chlorhexidine is currently used in some wards for skin disinfection. However, there is no evidence about the superiority of either antiseptic solution over the other one. This clinical trial carried out in two university hospitals affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran, aimed to compare the effects of chlorhexidine and PVP-I solutions on skin bacterial colonization in hospitalized neonates. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe participants were 98 hospitalized infants. In each infant, one area on the skin was disinfected by chlorhexidine while the contralateral site was disinfected by PVP-I. Skin cultures were taken before and after disinfection. Microorganisms were determined and colony count was performed based on a standard method. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods in SPSS v. 14.
resultsThe mean of microorganism colony count before and after disinfection by either solution was statistically different (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean microorganism colony count before disinfection. However, a significant difference was observed after disinfection.
conclusionsPVP-I is more efficacious than chlorhexidine for skin disinfection. Consequently, it seems better to use PVP-I for skin preparation before invasive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23983729PMC3748556W1583831830What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.