ArticleVeterinary ophthalmology2026
Antimicrobial Effect of Ultraviolet C (UV-C) Light Compared to Standard Povidone-Iodine Protocol for Preoperative Disinfection of the Periocular Area.
Article in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
- Antimicrobial Effect of Ultraviolet C (UV-C) Light Compared to Standard Povidone-Iodine Protocol for Preoperative Disinfection of the Periocular Area.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the antimicrobial effect of 275 nm wavelength ultraviolet C (UV-C) light on the periocular area of canine eyes for preoperative disinfection compared to standard 10% povidone-iodine (PI) solution preparation.
methodsThe upper and lower eyelids of six research-bred beagles were equally divided into two sections (medial and lateral). Each section received periocular cleansing with one of the following treatments: (1) saline, (2) baby shampoo, (3) baby shampoo and PI solution, or (4) baby shampoo and UV-C light therapy. Routine bacterial culture swabs were used to collect samples from the designated areas 30 min after the respective treatments.
resultsBacterial counts were significantly higher in eyelids treated with saline compared to UV-C light and PI treatments, respectively. The bacterial counts were significantly higher in the saline-treated eyelids compared to baby shampoo, PI, and UV-C treatments in the upper medial eyelid location. The remainder of the eyelid locations were not statistically significant between groups. One dog developed contact dermatitis after receiving PI cleansing. None of the dogs developed serious complications related to the disinfection techniques.
conclusionUV-C light treatment (combined with baby shampoo) is comparable to PI solution (combined with baby shampoo) in reducing the number of bacteria on the periocular surface; no adverse eyelid effects were noted after UV-C light exposure.
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.