ArticlePloS one2023
Efficiency of octenidine dihydrochloride alcohol combination compared to ethanol based skin antiseptics for preoperative skin preparation in dogs.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Recommendations for perioperative skin care in total joint arthroplasty: antimicrobial wash lotion, precleaning and hair removal].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify the bacterial burden after skin disinfection using an alcohol octenidine dihydrochloride combination (Octenisept®) compared to an 74.1% ethanol 10% 2-propanol combination (Softasept N®). STUDY
designProspective randomized clinical trial. MATERIAL &
methods61 dogs undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgeries (excluding surgeries on the gastrointestinal tract) were randomly assigned to group O (skin disinfection with alcohol and octenidine dihydrochloride after washing with octenidine containing soap) or to control group C (skin disinfection using the ethanol-2-propanol combination after washing with a neutral soap without antiseptic ingredients). Samples were then taken from 8 different locations within the surgical field at four different stages: after clipping, after washing, after disinfection and one hour later. At each stage, two different sampling techniques (wet-dry swab technique (WDS) and contact plates (CP)) were used for quantitative analysis of bacterial counts.
resultsWDS detected about 100-fold more bacteria compared to CP sampling in cases with high bacterial burden, but was not accurate enough to detect small numbers. CP sampling was therefore used for comparison of treatment protocols. 30 dogs were assigned to group O and 31 to group C. A relative reduction of 69% in group O and 77 percent in group C was observed after the soap wash. No significant differences were detected between both groups. Washing and disinfection resulted in a reduction of bacterial counts of 99.99% in group O versus 99.7% in group C (p = 0.018). Bacterial reduction one hour after washing and disinfection was significantly higher in group O (99.9%) than in group C (98.5%, p = 0.001).
conclusionAdditional octenidine dihydrochloride provided a slightly better decontamination effect after disinfection, particularly one hour after, which means it may only be indicated in longer surgeries. WDS is more sensitive but less specific to detect bacteria on the skin than the CP sampling.
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.