SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for surgical site infection prevention: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Infectious Complications in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Management.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrative Therapies in Wound Healing in Small Animals: An Approach Beyond Traditional Medicine.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal Using the Stoma Site in a Patient with Perioperative Anaphylaxis.Surgical case reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI) are the most commonly used antiseptic agents for preoperative skin preparation to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). This meta-analysis aimed to determine the superior agent between them for SSI prevention. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed from inception to 1 May 2025, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared (Q) test and the I Results: A total of 32 high-quality RCTs, involving 29,748 participants, were included. The pooled analysis using a random-effects model demonstrated that CHX was significantly more effective than PVI in preventing SSIs (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, Conclusion: CHX-based antiseptics are more effective than PVI-based ones in preventing overall SSIs, particularly in clean-contaminated procedures. The superiority of CHX is primarily evident in reducing superficial incisional SSIs, with no significant advantage observed for deep incisional or organ-space SSIs.
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.