Trial reportBJS open2019
Randomized clinical trial of single skin sterilization with a povidone-iodine applicator
Trial report in BJS open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disinfection with single or double usage of new antiseptic olanexidine gluconate in general surgery: a randomized study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Trial
- Dermatologic reactions to disinfectant use during the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinics in dermatologyReview
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of widely used povidone-iodine applicators for skin sterilization in abdominal surgery is unclear. The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether sterilization with a povidone-iodine applicator was not inferior to a conventional sterilization method. Methods: Patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were assigned randomly to receive single sterilization with the applicator or conventional sterilization. The primary endpoint was wound infection rate. Secondary endpoints were rate of organ/space surgical-site infection (SSI), adverse effects of povidone-iodine, amount of povidone-iodine used and total cost of sterilization. Results: Of 498 patients eligible for the study between April 2015 and September 2017, 240 were assigned and analysed in the applicator group and 246 in the conventional group. Wound infection was detected in 16 patients (6·7 per cent) in the applicator group and 16 (6·5 per cent) in the conventional group (absolute difference 0·0016 (90 per cent c.i. -0·037 to 0·040) per cent; Conclusion: In abdominal surgery, this povidone-iodine applicator was not inferior to conventional sterilization in terms of the wound infection rate, and it is cheaper. Registration number: UMIN000018231 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/).
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.