Trial reportInfectious disorders drug targets2025
Comparison of the Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine with Mupirocin in Decolonizing
Trial report in Infectious disorders drug targets, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Preoperative MRSA/MSSA Screening Through Molecular Triage.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nasal decolonization in total joint arthroplasty: current state of evidence.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal colonization of
objectiveOur study aimed to compare the efficacy of povidone-iodine solution with intranasal mupirocin ointment in decolonizing
methodsThis single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted on healthcare workers carrying S. aureus nasally. After confirming nasal colonization through culture tests, participants were assigned to intervention groups A and B with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group A received intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily for five days, while group B received intranasal povidone-iodine solution twice daily for five days. After the decolonization period, samples were taken to compare the efficacy of both interventions in decolonizing S. aureus.
resultsIn this study, 54 healthcare workers with a mean age of 39.37±7.80 years were included, 42.6% and 57.4% of whom were male and female, respectively. They were randomly assigned to each of the intervention groups. After the intervention, individuals who received povidone-iodine had significantly more positive cultures than those who received mupirocin (37.0% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.026). Additionally, factors such as age, gender, wards, and employment duration may affect the efficacy of mupirocin and povidone-iodine in decolonizing S. aureus from the nasal cavity.
conclusionThe study findings revealed that both mupirocin and povidone-iodine were effective in decolonizing S. aureus from nasal carriers. However, mupirocin was more effective compared with povidone-iodine. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IRCT 20170417033487 N2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39313892What 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.