Trial reportPloS one2017
Comparative efficacy of two different topical povidone-iodine 5% regimens in reducing conjunctival bacterial flora: A randomized parallel double-masked clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of povidone-iodine 10% plus levofloxacin 0.5% before cataract surgery: a randomized clinical trial.BMC research notes · 2025Trial
- Effects of chloramphenicol, povidone-iodine 1% and 5% eye drops on the colonisation of conjunctival flora in patients undergoing cataract surgery.Ghana medical journal · 2023Trial
- Use of an ultra-clean air flow for surgical field asepsis when performing intravitreous injections in an ambulatory surgical environment.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2020Article
- Povidone iodine treatment is deleterious to human ocular surface conjunctival cells in culture.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe increasing prevalence of multi-resistant bacteria is a major public health concern. Infections acquired during ophthalmic surgery are devastating. The purpose of the current study is to compare the proportion of eyes with negative bacterial cultures on all tested media after 1 versus 3 sequential drops of povidone-iodine (PI) 5% into the inferior conjunctival fornix.
methodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive 1 (PI group) drop (at time 28 minutes) or 3 (PI plus group) sequential drops (at time 0, 20 minutes and 28 minutes) of PI 5% into the inferior conjunctival sac of one randomly selected eye. A swab culture was obtained from the inferior conjunctival fornix 5 minutes before and 30 minutes after time 0. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured shortly before time 0 and shortly after time 30. Conjunctival swabs were incubated aerobically in enriched Thioglycolate liquid medium (meat broth) and in three solid culture media (chocolate agar, trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood, and Sabouraud agar).
resultsThere was no significant difference in the proportion of negative cultures after intervention between groups (p = 0.1638). Also in the PI group (n = 59), the proportion of eyes with negative cultures after PI (79.7%) did not differ significantly from baseline (76.3%; p = 0.7539). However in the PI plus group (n = 61), the proportion of eyes with all negative cultures after PI (85.3%) was significantly higher than before PI (70.5%) (p = 0.0177). There was no significant difference in mean CCT before and after the intervention in both groups.
conclusionInstillation of 3 sequential drops of PI was associated with a significant increase in the proportion of eyes with all negative cultures, while instillation of a single drop of PI was not associated with a significant increase in the proportion of negative cultures. Further study is warranted to determine whether the difference between the PI administration regimens is also associated with differences in the rates of postoperative ocular infections.
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.