ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2020
Influence of clipping on bacterial contamination of canine arthrocentesis sites before and after skin preparation.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial DNA and osteoarthritis in dogs with patellar luxation and cranial cruciate ligament rupture.Veterinary world · 2023Article
- Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry in veterinary medicine: Recent advances (2019-present).Veterinary world · 2022Review
- Influence of clipping on bacterial contamination of canine arthrocentesis sites before and after skin preparation.Veterinary surgery : VS · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the influence of hair removal as part of the aseptic skin preparation of canine arthrocentesis sites and to characterize the bacterial flora remaining after aseptic skin preparation. STUDY
designRandomized controlled trial. STUDY POPULATION: Thirteen shorthaired beagle-cross dogs.
methodsA coin toss was used to randomly determine to have one carpus, elbow, tarsus, and stifle clipped. The contralateral side was left unclipped. Aseptic skin preparation was performed on all sites with 4% chlorhexidine followed by 70% isopropyl alcohol. The skin of each site was sampled for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial cultures before and after aseptic skin preparation. Bacterial cultures were submitted for laboratory testing to determine the colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria and bacterial species isolated for each site.
resultsEach group (clipped and unclipped) included 52 sites. Aseptic skin preparation reduced bacterial CFU in both groups. There was no association between values for CFU per milliliter after skin preparation of dogs and side (P = .07), joint (P = .71), pre-aseptic skin preparation CFU (P = .94), or clipping (P = .42). Staphylococcus spp were the most common of the bacterial species cultured.
conclusionIn clean shorthaired dogs without visible evidence of dermatological disease, leaving arthrocentesis sites unclipped rather than performing traditional surgical clipping did not result in increased bacterial skin counts after aseptic skin preparation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In this study we did not find evidence to support that clipping of canine arthrocentesis sites is required for effective aseptic skin preparation. A prospective clinical trial is required to determine whether a change in practice would be associated with increased morbidity.
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.