ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Effect of chlorhexidine pretreatment on bacterial contamination at rhinoplasty field.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occult gram-negative bacterial colonization of explanted alloplastic implants incidentally detected during revision rhinoplasty: a microbiologically confirmed case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity in tubercular meningitis: An underacknowledged association.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Review
- Validation of Three Different Sterilization Methods of Tilapia Skin Dressing: Impact on Microbiological Enumeration and Collagen Content.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- A reliable method to avoid contamination during cartilage graft preparation in septorhinoplasty.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated on bacterial contamination of the rhinoplasty field. The effect of preoperative chlorhexidine treatment on decreasing bacterial contamination in the rhinoplasty field is examined.
methodsThirty patients who underwent rhinoplasty were block randomized into a chlorhexidine, regular-soap, or control group comprising ten participants each. The chlorhexidine group was subjected to chlorhexidine showering, shampooing, and facial-cleansing 12 h prior to the operation. The regular-soap group was subjected to cleansing with regular soap, and the control group did not have any skin pretreatment. Bacterial cultures were done 12 h preoperatively from nasal cavity and perinasal skin, immediately preoperatively from perinasal skin and at 1 and 2 h intraoperatively from operation field. Culture results were compared between the three groups, according to operation time, or whether infection-prone procedure was performed.
resultsThe bacterial species and colony-forming unit numbers at preoperative nasal cavity and perinasal skin were similar. In all three groups,
conclusionRhinoplasty is confirmed as a clean contaminated operation with skin flora consistently found in the operation field. Chlorhexidine pretreatment in rhinoplasty patients has a tendency to decrease the numbers of LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized controlled trial, Level I.
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.