Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 2 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 16.7%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 16.7%Low 1 · 16.7%Moderate 3 · 50%High 0 · 0%

Chlorhexidine vs povidone‐iodine

Surgical site infection · women undergoing caesarean section

Chlorhexidine gluconate probably leads to lower surgical site infection compared with povidone iodine (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.72 [0.58, 0.91]
8 studies · 4323 participants
Moderate

Chlorhexidine vs povidone‐iodine

Endometritis · women undergoing caesarean section

Chlorhexidine gluconate showed no clear difference in endometritis compared with povidone iodine (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.49, 1.86]
3 studies · 2484 participants
Low

Chlorhexidine vs povidone‐iodine

Length of stay · women undergoing caesarean section

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Chlorhexidine vs povidone‐iodine

Adverse events (maternal) ‐ skin irritation or allergic skin reaction · women undergoing caesarean section

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate changes adverse events (maternal) ‐ skin irritation or allergic skin reaction compared with povidone iodine (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.64 [0.28, 1.46]
3 studies · 1926 participants
Very low

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing vs SPU dressings

Catheter‐related blood stream infection · patients with CVCs

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection compared with SPU dressings (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.65 [0.4, 1.05]
5 studies · 4876 participants
Moderate

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing vs SPU dressings

Catheter tip colonisation · patients with CVCs

Chlorhexidine gluconate‐impregnated (CGI) dressing probably leads to lower catheter tip colonisation: compared with SPU dressings (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters (CVC) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.58 [0.47, 0.73]
6 studies · 4431 participants
Moderate