Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2010
Efficacy of ethanol-based hand foams using clinically relevant amounts: a cross-over controlled study among healthy volunteers.
Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alcohol-based hand sanitisers as first line of defence against SARS-CoV-2: a review of biology, chemistry and formulations.Epidemiology and infection · 2020Guideline
- Hand Sanitizers: A Review on Formulation Aspects, Adverse Effects, and Regulations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- A large-scale investigation of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) volume: hand coverage correlations utilizing an innovative quantitative evaluation system.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021Trial
- Hand and environmental hygiene: respective roles for MRSA, multi-resistant gram negatives, Clostridioides difficile, and Candida spp.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Review
- Rinse, gel, and foam - is there any evidence for a difference in their effectiveness in preventing infections?Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Review
- Article
- Hand sanitizers as a preventive measure in COVID-19 pandemic, its characteristics, and harmful effects: a review.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2022Review
- Hand hygiene behavior among Sri Lankan medical students during COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Analyses of Commercially Available Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs Formulated with Compliant and Non-Compliant Ethanol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Hand sanitizers: A review of ingredients, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, and efficacy against coronaviruses.American journal of infection control · 2020Review
- Bactericidal and virucidal activity of ethanol and povidone-iodine.MicrobiologyOpen · 2020Review
- Article
- Acceptability and tolerability of alcohol-based hand hygiene products for elderly residents in long-term care: a crossover study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2019Article
- Efficacy of ethanol against viruses in hand disinfection.The Journal of hospital infection · 2018Review
- How long is enough? Identification of product dry-time as a primary driver of alcohol-based hand rub efficacy.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018Article
- Article
- The relative influences of product volume, delivery format and alcohol concentration on dry-time and efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Back to basics: hand hygiene and isolation.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2014Review
- Less and less-influence of volume on hand coverage and bactericidal efficacy in hand disinfection.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Article
- A large-scale assessment of hand hygiene quality and the effectiveness of the "WHO 6-steps".BMC infectious diseases · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFoams containing 62% ethanol are used for hand decontamination in many countries. A long drying time may reduce the compliance of healthcare workers in applying the recommended amount of foam. Therefore, we have investigated the correlation between the applied amount and drying time, and the bactericidal efficacy of ethanol foams.
methodsIn a first part of tests, four foams (Alcare plus, Avagard Foam, Bode test foam, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) containing 62% ethanol, which is commonly used in U.S. hospitals, were applied to 14 volunteers in a total of seven variations, to measure drying times. In a second part of tests, the efficacy of the established amount of foam for a 30 s application time of two foams (Alcare plus, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) and water was compared to the EN 1500 standard of 2 x 3 mL applications of 2-propanol 60% (v/v), on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli. Each application used a cross-over design against the reference alcohol with 15 volunteers.
resultsThe mean weight of the applied foam varied between 1.78 and 3.09 g, and the mean duration to dryness was between 37 s and 103 s. The correlation between the amount of foam applied and time until hands felt dry was highly significant (p < 0.001; Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.724; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.93). By linear correlation, 1.6 g gave an intercept of a 30 s application time. Application of 1.6 g of Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer (mean log10-reduction: 3.05 +/- 0.45) and Alcare plus (3.58 +/- 0.71) was significantly less effective than the reference disinfection (4.83 +/- 0.89 and 4.60 +/- 0.59, respectively; p < 0.001). Application of 1.6 g of water gave a mean log10-reduction of 2.39 +/- 0.57.
conclusionsWhen using 62% ethanol foams, the time required for dryness often exceeds the recommended 30 s. Therefore, only a small volume is likely to be applied in clinical practice. Small amounts, however, failed to meet the efficacy requirements of EN 1500 and were only somewhat more effective than water.
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.