ReviewAmerican journal of infection control2002
Hygienic hand antiseptics: should they not have activity and label claims against viruses?
Review in American journal of infection control, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity Evaluation of Enveloped and Non-enveloped Viruses to Ethanol Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.Food and environmental virology · 2024Pooled it
- A unique water optional health care personnel handwash provides antimicrobial persistence and residual effects while decreasing the need for additional products.American journal of infection control · 2005Trial
- Development of a Rapid Isothermal Assay for Detection of Adenovirus Types Important in Respiratory Infections.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- Review
- Development and virucidal activity of a novel alcohol-based hand disinfectant supplemented with urea and citric acid.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Inter-society consensus document on treatment and prevention of bronchiolitis in newborns and infants.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2014Article
- Survival of Respiratory Viruses on Fresh Produce.Food and environmental virology · 2013Article
- Effectiveness of hand hygiene and provision of information in preventing influenza cases requiring hospitalization.Preventive medicine · 2012Article
- Inactivation of influenza A viruses in the environment and modes of transmission: a critical review.The Journal of infection · 2008Review
- Virucidal activity of a new hand disinfectant with reduced ethanol content: comparison with other alcohol-based formulations.The Journal of hospital infection · 2006Article
- Selected nonvaccine interventions to prevent infectious acute respiratory disease.American journal of preventive medicine · 2005Review
- Comparative efficacy of hand hygiene agents in the reduction of bacteria and viruses.American journal of infection control · 2005Article
- Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2004Review
- Microbicides and the environmental control of nosocomial viral infections.The Journal of hospital infection · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enteric and respiratory viruses are among the most frequent causes of human infections, and hands play an important role in the spread of these and many other viral diseases. Regular and proper hand hygiene by caregivers and food handlers in particular is essential to decontaminate hands and potentially interrupt such spread. What would be considered a proper decontamination of hands? Handwashing with regular soap and water is often considered sufficient, but what of hygienic handwash and handrub antiseptic products? Are they more effective? The evidence suggests that some clearly are. Activity against bacteria may not reflect the ability of hygienic hand antiseptics to deal with viruses, especially those that are nonenveloped. In spite of the acknowledged importance of hands as vehicles for viruses, there is a lack of suitable regulatory mechanism for handwash or handrub products to make claims of efficacy against viruses. This is in contrast with the ability of general-purpose disinfectants to make antiviral claims, although transmission of viruses from surfaces other than those of reusable medical devices may play only a minor role in virus transmission. This review discusses the (1). recent information on the relative importance of viruses as human pathogens, particularly those causing enteric and respiratory infections; (2). the survival of relevant viruses on human hands in comparison with common gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria; (3). the potential of hands to transfer or receive such contamination on casual contact; (4). role of hands in the spread of viruses; (5). the potential of hygienic measures to eliminate viruses from contaminated hands; (6). relative merits of available protocols to assess the activity of hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses; and (7). factors considered crucial in any tests to assess the activity of hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses. In addition, this review proposes surrogate viruses in such testing and discusses issues for additional consideration by researchers, manufacturers, end-users, and regulators.
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.