Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38782819›Full record

ArticleJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2024

Comparing the in vitro efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of post-surgical endophthalmitis.

Celso Soares Pereira Batista, Irene Loscos-Giménez, María Gámez, Raul Altaba, Daniela de Miniac, Neus Martí, Francisca Bassaganyas, Elena Juanes, Alba Rivera, Ferran Navarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Celso Soares Pereira BatistaMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain.
Irene Loscos-GiménezOphthalmology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
María GámezPharmacy department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Raul AltabaMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain.
Daniela de MiniacMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain.
Neus MartíMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain.
Francisca BassaganyasOphthalmology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Elena JuanesPharmacy department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Alba RiveraMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain. mrivera@santpau.cat.
Ferran NavarroMicrobiology department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Quintí, 89. Planta B-2, Barcelona, 08041, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravitreal injections are a common ophthalmologic procedure. While infections following these injections are rare, they can lead to endophthalmitis, with potentially serious consequences. Various methods have been proposed to prevent endophthalmitis, including the use of antisepsis and antibiotics in patient preparation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the antiseptic efficacy of aqueous chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PI) when used alone and in combination with lidocaine gel (LG) in vitro.

methodsTwo independent experimental trials were conducted. The first trial determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and the minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of CHX and PI against six bacterial strains. The second trial evaluated the bactericidal efficacy of the antiseptic agents (CHX 0.1% and PI 5%) and their combination with LG against the same bacterial strains.

resultsCHX was more effective than PI in reducing the number of colonies forming units (cfus) of the tested bacteria. The order in which the antiseptic and LG were administered affected their effectiveness, with CHX administered before LG resulting in greater reduction of bacterial growth.

conclusionsCHX 0.1% is more effective than PI 5% as an antiseptic agent. Application of CHX and PI prior to the use of lidocaine gel results in a more effective reduction of microorganisms.

Indexed as

ChlorhexidineEndophthalmitisIntravitreal injectionsPovidone-iodine

Identifiers

PMID38782819
PMCPMC11116284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.