Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32639545›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2020

Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Uri P Dior, Shamitha Kathurusinghe, Claudia Cheng, Charlotte Reddington, Andrew J Daley, Catarina Ang, Martin Healey

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Uri P DiorGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Shamitha KathurusingheGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Claudia ChengGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Charlotte ReddingtonGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew J DaleyDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Disease, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Catarina AngGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Martin HealeyGynaecology Division, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Royal Women's Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPovidone-IodinePreoperative CareSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidinePovidone-Iodine

Identifiers

PMID32639545
PMCPMC7344832
OpenAlexW3041038479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.