Trial reportRevista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes2021
Alcohol (70%) versus alcoholic chlorhexidine solution (0.5%) in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02833376 (Alcohol 70% Versus Chlorhexidine 0.5% in the Spinal Anesthesia Skin Antissepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Alcohol 70% Versus Chlorhexidine 0.5% in the Spinal Anesthesia Skin Antissepsis
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of sub-inhibitory concentrations of antiseptics on biofilm formation in S. epidermidis.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto compare the use of 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks.
methodthis is a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial, with two parallel arms. Seventy patients who were candidates for neuraxial block were randomly allocated to group A (n = 35), in whom antisepsis was performed with 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine, or to group B (n = 35), in whom we used 70% hydrated ethyl alcohol. Swabs were harvested for culture at three times: before antisepsis, two minutes after application of the antiseptic, and immediately after puncture. The samples were sown in three culture media and the number of colony forming units (CFU) per cm² was counted.
resultsthere was no difference between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, time to perform the block or type of block. There were no differences between groups in the CFU/cm² counts before antisepsis. There was less bacterial growth in group B two minutes after application of the antiseptic (p = 0.048), but there was no difference between the groups regarding the number of CFU/cm² at the end of the puncture.
conclusion70% alcohol was more effective in reducing the number of CFU/cm² after two minutes, and there was no difference between the two groups regarding skin colonization at the end of the procedure. These results suggest that 70% alcohol may be an option for skin antisepsis before neuraxial blocks. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02833376.
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.