SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Efficacy of chlorhexidine in alcohol versus aqueous povidone-iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis in preventing surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections represent a prevalent postoperative complication, significantly impacting patient safety and increasing the burden on healthcare resources. As a key measure for preventing these infections, preoperative skin antisepsis plays a crucial role. However, current meta-analyses and international guidelines have yet to reach a unified agreement on the optimal type and concentration of antiseptic preparation. This study aims to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine in alcohol and aqueous povidone-iodine in preventing surgical site infections through systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the preoperative skin antisepsis effects of chlorhexidine in alcohol and aqueous povidone-iodine up to May 31, 2025. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infections, while secondary outcomes included adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to chlorhexidine concentration, wound classification, and surgical category. The meta-analysis was conducted using R software, with a statistical threshold of P < 0.05 for significance. To evaluate the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 17 RCTs involving 13,737 patients. The results revealed that chlorhexidine in alcohol was significantly more effective than aqueous povidone-iodine in preventing surgical site infections (RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95, P < 0.01; I² = 14%). Subgroup analyses further demonstrated that 2.0%-2.5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, P = 0.02; I² = 32%) was associated with a lower SSI risk than aqueous povidone-iodine. Furthermore, in non-clean surgery (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75-0.97, P = 0.01; I² = 0%) and general surgery (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53-0.92, P = 0.01; I² = 65%), chlorhexidine in alcohol was associated with a significantly lower SSI risk. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results across individual studies, and TSA suggested that the accumulated evidence has reached the required information size. However, the interpretation of subgroup findings should consider residual heterogeneity in some subgroups and the risk of bias of included trials.
conclusionCompared with aqueous povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine in alcohol was associated with a lower risk of surgical site infections, particularly in non-clean surgery and at chlorhexidine concentrations of 2.0%-2.5%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.