ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of a 3% Chlorhexidine/Ophytrium Mousse and Shampoo in 18 Healthy Dogs.
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 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.
- Canine pyoderma in the era of multidrug resistance: Diagnosis and treatment.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTopical antimicrobial therapy is vital for managing pyoderma yet poor compliance can affect treatment outcomes. HYPOTHESIS/
objectiveTo evaluate the antimicrobial activity of a 3% chlorhexidine/ophytrium shampoo at different contact times and the residual activity of a 3% chlorhexidine/ophytrium mousse against meticillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MSSP and MRSP), Escherichia coli (EC), ESBL-producing E. coli (ESBL), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), and Malassezia pachydermatis (MP) in vitro. ANIMALS: 18 privately owned dogs. MATERIALS AND
methodsDogs were treated once with the shampoo for 3, 5 and 10 min, with hair samples taken after rinsing. The mousse was applied once. Hair samples were collected at 30 min (Day [D]0) and at D2, D4, D7 and D14 post-treatment. Hair bundles were plated on Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar plates pre-inoculated with MSSP, MRSP, EC, ESBL and PA, and on supplemented MH plates pre-inoculated with MP. Zones of inhibition (ZIs) were measured after 24 h (bacteria) and 48 h (MP) incubation.
resultsShampoo-there were no significant differences in antimicrobial activity between the contact times for any of the isolates. Mousse-for all the isolates, there was significant growth inhibition compared to the negative controls on D0, D2 and D4. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hairs exposed to the shampoo and mousse inhibited growth of all the isolates in vitro. A 3 min contact time was noninferior to 10 min for the shampoo. The mousse showed residual activity for ≥ 4 days for MSSP, MRSP, EC, PA and MP.
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.