ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-Alcohol and Povidone-Iodine in Preventing Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a leading cause of postoperative morbidity. While both chlorhexidine-alcohol (CHG-A) and povidone-iodine (PVI) are standard preoperative skin antiseptics, their comparative efficacy, particularly in clean-contaminated surgeries, where the benefit of CHG-A's persistent activity is most theorized, remains a subject of ongoing clinical debate. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether CHG-A is superior to PVI in preventing SSIs in adult patients undergoing elective surgery, with a specific focus on clean-contaminated procedures. The primary outcome was overall SSI incidence within 30 days; secondary outcomes included deep incisional SSI, superficial incisional SSI, and adverse skin reactions. We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 31, 2026, without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHG-A with PVI for preoperative skin preparation in adults undergoing elective surgery and reporting 30-day SSI rates using standardized definitions. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used for the meta-analysis, with heterogeneity quantified using the I² statistic. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted for clean-contaminated surgeries, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed. Nine RCTs (n = 8,000 patients) were included. For overall SSI, no significant difference was found between CHG-A and PVI (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; I² = 48%). In a prespecified subgroup of five studies on clean-contaminated surgeries, the RR was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58-1.03). Deep incisional SSI rates were lower with CHG-A, although not statistically significant (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.53-1.07). Heterogeneity stemmed from variability in surgery types and antiseptic formulations. Sensitivity analysis indicated robustness, with the most substantial effect change occurring upon omission of a large cardiac surgery trial. This meta-analysis did not find conclusive evidence that CHG-A is superior to PVI for preventing overall SSI across all surgery types. A nonsignificant trend favoring CHG-A was observed in clean-contaminated procedures and for deep SSIs, suggesting a context-dependent effect that warrants targeted investigation. Clinical choice may consider the specific surgical context, cost, and institutional protocols.
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.