ArticleBMC research notes2009
Evaluation of errors and limits of the 63-microuse-dust-fraction method, a surrogate to predict hidden moisture damage.
Article in BMC research notes, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- How long do bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses retain their replication capacity on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review examining environmental resilience versus healthcare-associated infection risk by "fomite-borne risk assessment".Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Inanimate Surfaces as a Source of Hospital Infections Caused by Fungi, Bacteria and Viruses with Particular Emphasis on SARS-CoV-2.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to analyze possible random and systematic measurement errors and to detect methodological limits of the previously established method.
findingsTo examine the distribution of random errors (repeatability standard deviation) of the detection procedure, collective samples were taken from two uncontaminated rooms using a sampling vacuum cleaner, and 10 sub-samples each were examined with 3 parallel cultivation plates (DG18). In this two collective samples of new dust, the total counts of Aspergillus spp. varied moderately by 25 and 29% (both 9 cfu per plate). At an average of 28 cfu/plate, the total number varied only by 13%.For the evaluation of the influence of old dust, old and fresh dust samples were examined. In both cases with old dust, the old dust influenced the results indicating false positive results, where hidden moist was indicated but was not present. To quantify the influence of sand and sieving, 13 sites were sampled in parallel using the 63-mum- and total dust collection approaches. Sieving to 63-mum resulted in a more then 10-fold enrichment, due to the different quantity of inert sand in each total dust sample.
conclusionThe major errors during the quantitative evaluation from house dust samples for mould fungi as reference values for assessment resulted from missing filtration, contamination with old dust and the massive influence of soil. If the assessment is guided by indicator genera, the percentage standard deviation lies in a moderate range.
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.