Trial reportInfection control and hospital epidemiology2020
Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis.
Trial report in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Clinical Evaluation of ZP, A Patient Preoperative Skin Preparation
Clinical Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Topically Applied ZP
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MonocrylMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-World Evidence of the Impact of a Novel Surgical Irrigant on Surgical Site Infections in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Performed at an Ambulatory Surgery Center.Surgical infections · 2024Article
- A lifelong quest to make home hemodialysis simple, safe, and effective: A review of outcomes of 12 major projects.Artificial organs · 2022Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn innovative approach to perioperative antiseptic skin preparation is warranted because of potential adverse skin irritation, rare risk of serious allergic reaction, and perceived diminished clinical efficacy of current perioperative antiseptic agents. The results of a confirmatory US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) phase 3 efficacy analysis of a recently approved innovative perioperative surgical skin antiseptic agent are discussed.
methodsThe microbial skin flora on abdominal and groin sites in healthy volunteers were microbiologically sampled following randomization to either ZuraGard, a 2% chlorhexidine/70% isopropyl alcohol preparation (Chloraprep), or a control vehicle (alcohol-free ZuraGard). Mean log10 reduction of colony-forming units (CFU) was assessed at 30 seconds, 10 minutes, and 6 hours.
resultsFor combined groin sites (1,721 paired observations) at all time points, the mean log10 CFU reductions were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02). Mean log10 CFU reductions across combined abdominal and groin sites at all time points (3,277 paired observations) were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02).
conclusionsA confirmatory FDA phase 3 efficacy analysis of skin antisepsis in human volunteers documented that ZuraGard was efficacious in significantly reducing the microbial burden on abdominal and groin test sites, exceeding that of Chloraprep. No significant adverse reactions were observed following the application of ZuraGard.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02831998 and NCT02831816.
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.