Trial reportTrials2022
Effect of vaginal antiseptic prior to caesarean section on the rate of post-caesarean complications: a blinded randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRates of caesarean section (CS) delivery are increasing worldwide. CS delivery is often complicated by post-surgical infection, estimated to have ten times higher risk of infections than that of vaginal delivery. While widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics with CS has reduced post-CS infection, incidence may be reduced further by cleansing the vagina with betadine antiseptic wash prior to CS. However, reports are not consistent, and different antiseptics have been practised variably. Therefore, in order to ensure that the risks to the mother are as minimal as possible, it is important to determine whether vaginal irrigation with antiseptic wash reduces post-CS infection rate, and if so, which antiseptic is paramount.
methodsWomen giving birth by elective or emergency CS will be assigned into either the intervention (1% povidone iodine (n = 125) or chlorhexidine (n = 125)) or the control (no-irrigation (n = 125)) group by using a block randomisation technique. Participants will receive vaginal cleansing with an intervention or no vaginal cleansing prior to CS. Follow-up will occur at day 14 and day 28 post-CS. A predeveloped questionnaire will be completed with patients' socio-demographic characteristics and required clinical and pregnancy-related information. All the fever, infection and readmission-related information will be completed from either the patient's or their record or at follow-up visits. Occurrence of post-CS infection, as measured by primary and secondary outcomes, will be compared between the groups. DISCUSSION: The results of this study may provide important data to define the future uniform use of vaginal antiseptic wash immediately prior to CS and to determine the best antiseptic wash details in reducing post-operative infections or complications.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620000971932p . Registered on 28 September 2020.
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.