ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2018
Surgical hand antisepsis: experimental study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of six sigma management to standardize surgical hand disinfection practices.BMC surgery · 2025Article
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
purposeNosocomial infections account for one of the most serious complications in hospitalized patients around the world. Surgical site infections have significant economic implications, and surgical antisepsis plays an important role in such processes.
methodsWith prior approval by the Institutional Review Board and informed consent, 10 volunteers were randomly assigned to 3 protocols on hand antisepsis: protocol A (chloroxylenol 3%), protocol B (benzalkonium chloride at 1%), and protocol C (ethyl alcohol 61%, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate). Smears from both hands were cultured after each hand pro tocol (t0) and at the end of suturing (t1). Colony forming units were counted (CFUs on blood agar dishes) with digital counting software (Open CFU). Friedman test was used to compare the mean values among the groups, and a Bonferroni correction was made to determine the dissimilar group, with a P = 0.015.
resultsAt t0 for protocol A the CFU count was 82.8 ± 1.3; protocol B was 9.7 ± 30; protocol C was 0.1 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). At t1 for protocol A the CFU was 80.7 ± 89.4; protocol B was 7.5 ± 32; protocol C was 0.0 ± 0.0 (P < 0.001). No adverse events were present among the subjects.
conclusionEthyl alcohol at 61% with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate showed higher efficacy than the traditional washing antiseptics.
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.