Effectiveness of two scrub methods with different chlorhexidine combinations for surgical field antisepsis in cats.

Francisca M Duque, José D Dos-Santos, Patrícia C Cabral, Adriana Belas, João M Martins

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Francisca M DuqueFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal (Duque, dos-Santos, Cabral, Belas, Martins); Veterinary and Animal Research Center (CECAV) (dos-Santos, Cabral, Martins) and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) (dos-Santos, Martins), UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal; Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Lisbon, Portugal (dos-Santos, Belas, Martins).

José D Dos-SantosFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal (Duque, dos-Santos, Cabral, Belas, Martins); Veterinary and Animal Research Center (CECAV) (dos-Santos, Cabral, Martins) and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) (dos-Santos, Martins), UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal; Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Lisbon, Portugal (dos-Santos, Belas, Martins).

Patrícia C CabralFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal (Duque, dos-Santos, Cabral, Belas, Martins); Veterinary and Animal Research Center (CECAV) (dos-Santos, Cabral, Martins) and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) (dos-Santos, Martins), UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal; Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Lisbon, Portugal (dos-Santos, Belas, Martins).

Adriana BelasFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal (Duque, dos-Santos, Cabral, Belas, Martins); Veterinary and Animal Research Center (CECAV) (dos-Santos, Cabral, Martins) and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) (dos-Santos, Martins), UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal; Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Lisbon, Portugal (dos-Santos, Belas, Martins).

João M MartinsFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal (Duque, dos-Santos, Cabral, Belas, Martins); Veterinary and Animal Research Center (CECAV) (dos-Santos, Cabral, Martins) and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) (dos-Santos, Martins), UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal; Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Lisbon, Portugal (dos-Santos, Belas, Martins).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Assessing effectiveness of circular (CM) and linear (LM) scrub methods using 3 different combinations of chlorhexidine in surgical field antisepsis in cats. Animals and procedure: Surgical field antisepsis was applied with 2 scrub methods (CM and LM) and 3 different chlorhexidine combinations (A1, A2, and A3) in 51 female cats undergoing ovariectomy. Sterile swabs collected from the surgical field pre- and post-antisepsis were inoculated in the laboratory and colony-forming units (CFU/mL) were quantified. Results: Following the application of antisepsis, the number of positive samples decreased in all groups ( Conclusion and clinical relevance: Surgical field antisepsis in cats with CM and LM scrub methods, using 2% chlorhexidine combined with 70% ethyl or 70% isopropyl alcohol, or 1% chlorhexidine combined with 70% ethyl alcohol, can effectively reduce the bacterial load on the skin.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineSurgical Wound InfectionAnimalsAntisepsisCatsFemaleOvariectomyAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidine

Identifiers

PMID38952764

PMCPMC11195503

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.