Trial reportJAMA surgery2020
Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine for surgical site disinfection: a systematic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for surgical site infection prevention: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Differentiating Normal Healing From Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Educational and Diagnostic Tool for Emergency Providers Evaluating the Postoperative Patient.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Chlorhexidine vs. Povidone for Skin Antisepsis in Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Uncovering the Benefits of Povidone Iodine Compared to Other Therapeutic Agents in Wound Infection Prevention and Healing Outcomes: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- The Level of Surface Coverage of Surgical Site Disinfection Depends on the Visibility of the Antiseptic Agent-A Virtual Reality Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Sustained Improvement of Appropriateness in Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis with the Application of Quality Control Circle.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Gynecological laparoscopies are one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. Limited evidence exists on rates of surgical site infections in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopies and strategies to prevent these infections. Objective: To compare rates of port-site infections, organ or space infections, and any type of surgical site infections among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies and received 1 of 3 types of skin preparation solutions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 28, 2017, and November 26, 2018, at a tertiary university-affiliated referral center. A total of 661 patients 18 years or older who underwent an elective operative laparoscopy for treatment of nonmalignant gynecological disorders were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to have their skin cleaned before surgery with alcohol-based chlorhexidine, alcohol-based povidone-iodine, or water-based povidone-iodine. Statistical analysis was performed from February 28, 2017, to November 26, 2018. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: A total of 221 patients were randomized to have their skin prepared preoperatively with water-based povidone-iodine, 220 were randomized to alcohol-based povidone-iodine, and 220 were randomized to alcohol-based chlorhexidine. The patients were blinded to the solution used to clean their skin. Patients were followed up 1 and 4 weeks after surgery by a physician who was blinded to the skin preparation solution used at surgery. Evidence of infection according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were documented. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this study was port-site infection 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were organ or space infections and any type of surgical site infections; the study also aimed to prospectively describe rates of surgical site infections in gynecological laparoscopies. Results: Of the 661 patients, 640 (96.8%; mean [SD] age, 36.2 [10.6] years) were examined after surgery by a physician at the study site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of port-site infection was 10.2% (65 of 640), rate of organ or space infection was 6.6% (42 of 640), and rate of any surgical site infection was 16.3% (104 of 640). The odds ratio for port-site infection for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs water-based povidone-iodine was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.08), for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.71-2.52), and for water-based povidone-iodine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.19 (95% 0.62-2.27). Conclusions and Relevance: Surgical site infections were more common than expected among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies. No skin preparation solution provided an advantage compared with the other solutions in reducing infection rates. Trial Registration: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617000475347.
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.