ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2014
Comparison of the effects of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine solutions on skin bacterial flora among hospitalized infants.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlorhexidine skin or cord care for prevention of mortality and infections in neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Aqueous chlorhexidine 1% versus 2% for neonatal skin antisepsis: a randomised non-inferiority trial.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2021Trial
- A Comparison of Chlorhexidine-Alcohol and Povidone-Iodine-Alcohol on the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
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 is an essential part of caring for hospitalized infants. With regard to the change of bacterial resistance over time and places, as well as the need for periodic studies on the effectiveness of antiseptics, this study aims to compare the effects of both solutions of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine on skin bacterial flora among hospitalized infants. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis clinical trial recruited 98 hospitalized infants and each of the above-mentioned solutions has been applied to a small area in the left or right side of the infants' bodies. Skin cultures were taken before, immediately after and 2 h after the randomly chosen infants' skin areas that were disinfected by each solution (588 skin cultures in total). Colony count and determination of microorganism types were done by only one person in a single laboratory. The study has been conducted in two teaching hospitals in Isfahan, Iran.
resultsStaphylococcus epidermidis was the most common microorganism prior to skin disinfection by either solution. Two hours after disinfection, "Staphylococcus epidermidis" and "Staphylococcus epidermidis and kelebsila" had the highest frequencies of 3.1% and 3.1%, respectively. Before and 2 h after disinfection, distribution of different types of microorganisms had no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.84 and 0.13, respectively); however, the difference was significant immediately after disinfection, P < 0.01.
conclusionThe present study demonstrated that 10% povidone-iodine solution has more significant effect on reduction of skin pathogens promptly after application compared to 2% chlorhexidine. Therefore, prior to any catheterization procedures, it is imperative to use 10% povidone-iodine solutions for skin disinfection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.