ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Antiseptic Efficacy and Ocular Surface Toxicity of Povidone-Iodine and Chlorhexidine for Endophthalmitis Isolates.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the antimicrobial efficacy and ocular surface toxicity of two antiseptic agents: povidone-iodine (PI) and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) against clinical endophthalmitis isolates and to perform preliminary assessments of epithelial viability and inflammatory cytokine response following antiseptic exposure in a corneal tissue model. Methods: A well diffusion assay was used to assess inhibition zones of PI (5% and 10%) and CHX (0.05% and 0.1%) against 34 microbial isolates, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and fungi. Additional testing was conducted using lower concentrations of PI (0.025% and 1%). Corneal epithelial tissue models, both uninfected and infected with Staphylococcus epidermidis, were treated with two antiseptic agents. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay, and inflammatory response was evaluated by quantifying IL-8 via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at multiple time points. Results: PI at 5% and 10% demonstrated statistically significant broader antimicrobial inhibition across most isolates compared to CHX (P < 0.05), although CHX had greater efficacy against P. aeruginosa. PI at 0.025% showed no inhibition. CHX-treated corneal tissue retained higher viability (greater percent of living cells) in both healthy and infected models (71%-100%) compared to PI (9%-17%). PI-treated tissue showed higher IL-8 proinflammatory cytokine levels, and CHX elicited minimal inflammatory response. Conclusions: PI and CHX demonstrated broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity in vitro, with PI exhibiting greater antimicrobial activity across most isolates. CHX was associated with higher corneal epithelial viability and a lower inflammatory response of measured cytokines.
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.