ArticlePediatric research2025
Efficacy and safety of three antiseptics for neonatal skin disinfection: a cohort study.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Quality Improvement Bundle to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An Observational Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pediatric necrotizing soft tissue infection: unveiling a rare complication of routine procedures - peripheral venous catheter insertion.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- The use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to central venous catheterization in infants: a national survey of the Italian Society of Neonatology.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of the ideal antiseptic is not only based on its efficacy but also on safety and skin-friendliness. There are no standard recommendations regarding ideal skin preparation in neonates.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy of 3 antiseptics[10% Povidone Iodine(PI), 70% isopropyl alcohol(AL), 2% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol(CHG-IPA)] in disinfecting the skin before venipuncture in term neonates as assessed by logarithmic reduction in skin bacterial colony counts post-application. Secondary objectives were to assess the changes in skin condition. Measurements were done pre-, post-antiseptic and 6-24 h (for residual effect) later. Fifty neonates were enrolled in each group.
resultsAll three antiseptics caused a significant reduction in bacterial load post-application, but maximal efficacy [2.6(2.2-2.8)log reduction] and, maximal residual effect at 6-24 h was seen with CHG-IPA [2.4(2.2-2.6)log reduction]. The logarithmic reduction in colony counts from pre-intervention to 6-24 h later remained significant for all three groups [(PI, p-0.039; CHG-IPA, p-0.00; AL, p - 0.01)]. After an initial alteration in hydration, and skin condition score, there was a return to baseline after 6-24 h. CONCLUSION(S): 2% CHG-IPA had better efficacy than AL or PI for skin antisepsis in term neonates. There was no significant change in skin integrity in all three groups. IMPACT: All three antiseptics [2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol(CHG + IPA), 10% Povidone Iodine(PI), and 70% isopropyl alcohol(AL)] cause significant reduction in bacterial colony counts. CHG + IPA has the maximum efficacy as assessed by log reduction of bacterial colony counts with optimal residual effect favouring its usage in term neonates. The least efficacy is seen with 70% isopropyl alcohol. All three antiseptics are skin-friendly and do not affect the skin integrity. Future studies addressing the clinical outcomes and safety in preterm populations with these commonly used antiseptics should be done.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39516574What 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.