Desinfectie huid en slijmvliezen Module 1.3 Evidence-tabel
Evidence table for intervention studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies [cohort studies, case-control studies, case series])1
|
Study reference |
Study characteristics |
Patient characteristics 2 |
Intervention (I) |
Comparison / control (C) 3
|
Follow-up |
Outcome measures and effect size 4 |
Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peden, 2019 |
Type of study: observational study (retrospective chart review) Setting and country: office-based clinical setting, USA Funding and conflicts of interest: None of the authors has any financial/conflicting interests to disclose. |
Inclusion criteria: All patients who had undergone intravitreal injection for retinal vascular diseases between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016. Exclusion criteria: Not reported N total at baseline: 35060 injections in 1854 patients. 5% PI: 29281 injections in 1805 patients 2.5% PI:3731 injections in 253 patients 1.25% PI: 1673 injections in 80 patients 0.625% PI: 56 injections in 6 patients No PI: 319 injections in 18 patients Important prognostic factors2: Not reported. Groups comparable at baseline? Not reported |
Describe intervention (treatment/procedure/test): 2.5% Povidone iodine 1.25% Povidone iodine 0.625% Povidone iodine No Povidone iodine |
Describe control (treatment/procedure/test): 5% Povidone iodine |
Length of follow-up: Not reported Loss-to-follow-up: Not reported Incomplete outcome data: Not reported |
Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):
5% PI: 12 patients with endophthalmitis 2.5% PI: 0 patients with endophthalmitis 1.25% PI: 1 patient with endophthalmitis 0.625% PI: 0 patients with endophthalmitis Rates of endophthalmitis were lower in IVTs with dilute PI when compared with 5% PI (OR = 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.058–3.429) Rates of endophthalmitis were higher in IVTs with 1.25% PI when compared with 5% PI (OR 1.46 95% confidence interval 0.19 – 11.23)
Not reported |
|