ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Efficacy and safety of chlorhexidine vs. povidone-iodine for vaginal antisepsis in surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- Comparing Pre-Operative Vaginal Preparation with 0.3% Chlorhexidine-Cetrimide Versus 10% Povidone-Iodine on Post-Caesarean Section Infection - A Randomized Controlled Trial.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are significant postoperative complications in gynecologic and obstetric surgeries. Preoperative vaginal antisepsis is vital for prevention. This review compares the efficacy and safety of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) vs. povidone-iodine (PI) for vaginal antisepsis in preventing postoperative infections. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of major databases was conducted through 8 Ja-nuary 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHG and PI for vaginal antisepsis during urogynecologic procedures were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE approach assessed the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was SSIs; secondary outcomes included febrile morbidity, hospital stay, antiseptic-related side effects, and wound complications. Results: Twelve RCTs, including 4936 participants, were analyzed. The results showed that CHG significantly reduced compared to PI (RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.30-2.26; Conclusion: CHG was superior to PI in preventing SSIs in gynecologic and obstetric surgeries. With high-quality evidence supporting its use, CHG is recommended for vaginal preparation. Future research should explore cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes.
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.