ReviewCureus2025
Use of Povidone-Iodine Solution for Intraoperative Antisepsis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Antisepsis is a critical aspect of ocular surgery, particularly in intraocular procedures, due to the high risk of postoperative infections. Povidone-iodine is widely recognized for its broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties. This systematic review evaluates the intraoperative use of povidone-iodine applied to the conjunctiva in ocular surgeries. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2009 and 2023 in English that involved individuals who had undergone an ophthalmological intervention. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and a PRISMA flow diagram was used to illustrate the study selection process. Keywords used included the following: ("Povidone-iodine" OR "Betadine") AND ("Conjunctiva" OR "Ocular surgery"). Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria focusing on the intraoperative antiseptic application of povidone-iodine in human ocular procedures, omitting conference abstracts or unpublished studies. Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base is limited by the small number of included RCTs, which restricts the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. This small sample increases susceptibility to methodological bias, reduces the reliability of pooled estimates, and limits the ability to explore heterogeneity. Furthermore, the potential for publication bias cannot be excluded, particularly given the limited number of studies, which may overestimate treatment effects. These studies compared povidone-iodine 5% to other concentrations or antibiotic agents such as povidone-iodine 1%, chloramphenicol 5%, netilmicin, commercial ozonized antiseptic solution (ozone), moxifloxacin 0.5%, and gatifloxacin. The application of all agents was topically on the conjunctiva just before the ophthalmological procedure started, and only gatifloxacin was applied for three days prior to the procedure. Across all included trials, povidone-iodine demonstrated superior antiseptic efficacy, significantly reducing conjunctival bacterial flora before surgery. The comparative agents showed minimal or less consistent antimicrobial effects. No serious or minor adverse effects related to povidone-iodine use were reported in any of the trials. Povidone-iodine remains a highly effective and safe antiseptic agent for intraoperative use in ocular surgery, while a need exists for additional high-quality independently conducted RCTs to confirm the observed effects and expand the evidence base. Its broad antimicrobial spectrum and favorable safety profile support its continued and widespread application for conjunctival antisepsis, outperforming several commonly used alternatives.
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.