Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37034245›Full record

ReviewSurgery open science2023

Evaluation of the role of povidone‑iodine in the prevention of surgical site infections.

Stan J Monstrey, Kris Govaers, Patrice Lejuste, Didier Lepelletier, Paulo Ribeiro de Oliveira

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgery open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Postoperative cavity irrigation Vs suction drainage alone in odontogenic deep neck abscess: a comparative cohort study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Stan J MonstreyBurn Care Center, Plastic Surgery Department, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Kris GovaersDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, az Sint-Blasius, Dendermonde, Belgium.
Patrice LejusteDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium.
Didier LepelletierHospital Hygiene Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Paulo Ribeiro de OliveiraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, São João University Hospital, Porto, Portugal.
AZ Sint-Blasius · BECentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRGhent University Hospital · BEGrand Charleroi Hospital · BEHospital de São João · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) is associated with increased risk of mortality, development of other infections, and the need for reintervention, posing a significant health burden. The aim of this review was to examine the current data and guidelines around the use of antiseptic povidone‑iodine (PVP-I) for the prevention of SSIs at each stage of surgical intervention. Methods: A literature search for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise. Results: Scientific evidence demonstrates that PVP-I can be used at every stage of surgical intervention: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. PVP-I is one of the most widely used antiseptics on healthy skin and mucous membranes for preoperative surgical site preparation and is associated with a low SSI rate. For intraoperative irrigation, aqueous PVP-I is the recommended agent and has been demonstrated to decrease SSIs in a range of surgical settings, and for postoperative wound healing, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of PVP-I. Conclusions: There is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation. The use of a single agent (PVP-I) at each stage of surgical intervention could potentially provide advantages, including economic benefits, over agents that can only be used at discrete stages of the surgical procedure. Key message: Evidence supports the use of PVP-I at all stages of surgical intervention, from preoperative measures (including skin preparation, preoperative washing, and nasal decolonization) to intraoperative irrigation, through to postoperative wound management. However, there is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation.

Indexed as

AntisepticDecolonizationPovidone‑iodineSurgical site infectionWound healing

Identifiers

PMID37034245
PMCPMC10074992
OpenAlexW4327565194

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.