ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Evaluation of Sterility of Saline Formulations Manufactured for Wound Care in Veterinary Practice.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The discontinuation of commercially available saline and hypertonic saline wound dressings for the veterinary market has restricted options available to veterinary practitioners treating contaminated and infected wounds. Clinicians may manufacture their own homemade solutions in clinics or field settings to treat equine or livestock species; however, information is limited on whether autoclave sterilization is necessary or sufficient to eliminate bacterial growth in isotonic and concentrated salt solutions and how long they may subsequently be stored prior to use. The purpose of this study was to assess sterility of saline (0.9%) and hypertonic saline (20%) solutions manufactured three ways (1-autoclaved glass bottle that was autoclaved again following solution preparation; 2-autoclaved glass bottle, not autoclaved again following preparation; 3-non-autoclaved plastic bottle, not autoclaved following preparation). Solutions were stored two different ways (1-solution in sealed bottle or 2-soaked gauze in vacuum-sealed plastic packets). Products were assessed for bacterial growth at four time points (baseline, one week, one month, six months). At each time point, samples of each solution were plated on Luria-Bertani (LB) agar plates and assessed for bacterial growth at 24 h. Vacuum-sealed soaked gauze was placed in antibiotic-free growth media for 24 h, and then media were plated on LB agar plates and assessed for bacterial growth at 24 h. If bacterial growth was detected, qualitative culture with sensitivity was performed to identify bacterial isolates. No bacterial growth was detected in stored solutions for any preparation method, concentration or time point assessed. Bacterial growth was detected from 0.9% saline-soaked gauze at 1 week, 1 month and 6 months in all container types for at least one time point. Bacterial culture revealed
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.