ArticleBMC infectious diseases2013
Less and less-influence of volume on hand coverage and bactericidal efficacy in hand disinfection.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review on factors influencing the effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rubbing in healthcare.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Pooled it
- 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 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
- Adult and children's use of hand sanitizer during a pandemic - an observational study.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2023Observational
- Medical Students' and Radiology Technician Trainees' eHealth Literacy and Hygiene Awareness-Asynchronous and Synchronous Digital Hand Hygiene Training in a Single-Center Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2: A Review.Viruses · 2022Review
- Establishing a Learning Model for Correct Hand Hygiene Technique in a NICU.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Rheological design of thickened alcohol-based hand rubs.Rheologica acta · 2022Article
- Hand hygiene behavior among Sri Lankan medical students during COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Improving the communication of hand hygiene procedures: Controlled observation, redesign, and randomized group comparisons.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2021Article
- Hand sanitizers: A review of ingredients, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, and efficacy against coronaviruses.American journal of infection control · 2020Review
- Critical Reliability Issues of Common Type Alcohol-Based Handrub Dispensers.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2020Article
- ManagingHeliyon · 2020Article
- The Common Missed Handwashing Instances and Areas after 15 Years of Hand-Hygiene Education.Journal of environmental and public health · 2019Article
- Compliance and Performance of Hand Hygiene in Dutch General Practice Offices Using Electronic Dispensers.Journal of primary care & community healthObservational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome manufacturers recommend using 1.1 mL per application of alcohol-based handrubs for effective hand disinfection. However, whether this volume is sufficient to cover both hands, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and fulfills current efficacy standards is unknown. This study aimed to determine hand coverage for three handrubs (two gels based on 70% v/v and 85% w/w ethanol and a foam based on 70% v/v ethanol) applied at various volumes.
methodsProducts were tested at product volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, 2.4 mL as well as 1 and 2 pump dispenser pushes; the foam product was tested in addition at foam volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, and 2.4 mL. Products were supplemented with a fluorescent dye and 15 participants applied products using responsible application techniques without any specific steps but the aim of completely covering both hands. Coverage quality was determined under ultraviolet light by two blinded investigators. Efficacy of the three handrubs was determined according to ASTM E 1174-06 and ASTM E 2755-10. For each experiment, the hands of 12 participants were contaminated with Serratia marcescens and the products applied as recommended (1.1 mL for 70% v/v ethanol products; 2 mL for the 85% w/w ethanol product). Log10-reduction was calculated.
resultsVolumes < 2 mL yielded high rates of incomplete coverage (67%-87%) whereas volumes ≥ 2 mL gave lower rates (13%-53%). Differences in coverage were significant between the five volumes tested for all handrubs (p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA) but not between the three handrubs themselves (p = 0.796). Application of 1.1 mL of 70% v/v ethanol rubs reduced contamination by 1.85 log10 or 1.60 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06); this failed the US FDA efficacy requirement of at least 2 log10. Application of 2 mL of the 85% w/w ethanol rub reduced contamination by 2.06 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06), fulfilling the US FDA efficacy requirement. Similar results were obtained according to ASTM E 2755-10.
conclusionsOur data indicated that handrubs based on 70% ethanol (v/v) with a recommended volume of 1.1 mL per application do not ensure complete coverage of both hands and do not achieve current ASTM efficacy standards.
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.