ArticleMaedica2016
Comparative Evaluation of Intra-Operative Peritoneal Lavage with Super Oxidized Solution and Normal Saline in Peritonitis Cases; Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Maedica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined Surgery and Extensive Intraoperative Peritoneal Lavage vs Surgery Alone for Treatment of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: The SEIPLUS Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2019Trial
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Postoperative Infections After Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: The Surgeon's Checklist.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intra-operative peritoneal lavage: normal saline, super-oxidized solution, antibiotics, or chemotherapy dilemma.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the efficacy of super-oxidized solution (SOS) over normal saline in peritonitis cases. Our objectives are to present the potential clinical impact of intraperitoneal lavage with solutions for early recovery of the patient by reducing the infection rate. MATERIAL AND
methodsA double-blind random clinical trial was performed in 240 cases diagnosed as peritonitis at MM Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, India, from December 2013 to November 2015. Subjects were categorized into 2 groups, i.e. 120 cases in the group I and 120 cases in the group II. Both the groups underwent peritoneal lavage; the group I underwent normal saline lavage and group II received SOS. The effectiveness of both the solutions was compared.
resultsIn both the groups majority of the patients (50.0%) were in the 21 - 40 years of age. The mean age in our study was 45.28 years, median was 45 and the standard deviation was 14.07. The bacterial load was higher in the group II as compared to the group I after the lavage with SOS solution. The superficial wound infection rate was higher in the group II (48 cases) compared to the group I (32). These data was significant with p value (0.040). Wound pain was found in 59 cases in group II as compared to 42 in group I. This difference was found to be statistically significant with p value 0.036. Post-operatively the morbidity and mortality was less in the group I as compared to group II.
conclusionSOS significantly reduced the wound pain and infection hence resulting in early recovery. SOS is a high level disinfectant, non-flammable and no special training is required to handle it.
Identifiers
28828043PMC5543518W2747902290What 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.