ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Evaluation of Chlorhexidine-Containing Shampoos: In Vitro Efficacy Against Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Lathering Ability.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 2026. 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.
- In Vitro Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Chlorhexidine-Based Shampoos Against Clinical Isolates ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Canine pyoderma in the era of multidrug resistance: Diagnosis and treatment.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2026Article
- Shampoo therapy in veterinary dermatology: Benefits and practical tips.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe antibacterial efficacy of chlorhexidine shampoo is directly affected by formulation and bathing factors. HYPOTHESIS/
objectiveTo evaluate the in vitro antibacterial efficacy of chlorhexidine-containing shampoos at various dilutions and to compare their lathering ability. ANIMALS: No animals were utilised in this study. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight chlorhexidine-containing shampoos, three non-chlorhexidine shampoos, and a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate solution were tested against one American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) meticillin-sensitive Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and one institutional meticillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius isolate. The effect of formulation on minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined using a broth microdilution method. The first dilution that had no visible growth and four preceding dilutions were plated on blood agar to determine the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). Lathering ability and lather stability were assessed using a modified cylinder shake method. MIC and MBC were compared for the dilution ratio and chlorhexidine gluconate/digluconate concentration using a Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.001).
resultsAll products had a detectable MIC. Statistically significant differences between MIC and MBC were observed between shampoos that were not based on chlorhexidine concentration alone. Two non-chlorhexidine shampoos had no detectable MBC. Over time, all shampoos had a significant decrease in lather height. Lathering ability significantly differed between some shampoos. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This preliminary study suggests that shampoo formulation and not just chlorhexidine concentration impacts efficacy. Further investigation with more robust numbers of bacterial isolates and large-scale head-to-head clinical trials is required to determine if the reported in vitro variance has clinical significance.
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.