Trial reportScientific reports2025
Alcoholic vs. aqueous chlorhexidine for abdominal surgery skin preparation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
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
Surgical site infections (SSIs) significantly affect patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is widely used for preoperative skin preparation; however, aqueous CHG is being considered as a safer alternative in certain settings. This study was designed as an equivalence randomized controlled trial to compare aqueous versus alcoholic CHG for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in major abdominal operations. A single-centre, randomised controlled equivalence trial (Thai Clinical Trials Registry No. TCTR20211028001, Date October 28, 2021) enrolled 1,326 patients undergoing elective or emergency abdominal surgeries. Participants were randomised to receive skin preparation with either 2% aqueous CHG or 2% alcohol-based CHG. The primary outcome was 30-day total SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included seroma, wound dehiscence, and hospital stay. Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and as-treated approaches. In the modified intention-to-treat population, total SSI rates were 8.45% (95% CI: 6.44-10.83) in the aqueous CHG group and 10.26% (95% CI: 8.05-12.82) in the alcohol-based group. There was no significant difference in total SSI rates between groups (RD -0.7%, 95% CI: -3.3 to 1.8). Similar results were found in other analyses. Secondary outcomes showed no significant group differences. All findings were within the predefined equivalence margin. Although SSI rates were similar, statistical equivalence was not demonstrated due to wide confidence intervals. Aqueous CHG may still be a suitable alternative where alcohol-based CHG is contraindicated.
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.