Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25379773›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Hand hygiene--evaluation of three disinfectant hand sanitizers in a community setting.

Rita Babeluk, Sabrina Jutz, Sarah Mertlitz, Johannes Matiasek, Christoph Klaus

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024
    Article
  6. Evidence-based hand hygiene: Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter?Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessment of Anti-Bacterial Effectiveness of Hand Sanitizers Commonly Used in South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative Efficacy of Hand Disinfection Potential of Hand Sanitizer and Liquid Soap among Dental Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rita BabelukDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sabrina JutzDepartment of Biotechnology, University of Applied Science Campus Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sarah MertlitzDepartment of Biotechnology, University of Applied Science Campus Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes MatiasekDepartment of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelminen Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christoph KlausInternational Scientific Affairs, Schülke & Mayr GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
FH Campus Wien · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATWilhelminen Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hand hygiene is acknowledged as the single most important measure to prevent nosocomial infections in the healthcare setting. Similarly, in non-clinical settings, hand hygiene is recognised as a key element in helping prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different disinfectant hand sanitizers in reducing the burden of bacterial hand contamination in 60 healthy volunteers in a community setting, both before and after education about the correct use of hand sanitizers. The study is the first to evaluate the efficacy and ease of use of different formulations of hand rubs used by the general population. The products tested were: Sterillium (perfumed, liquid), desderman pure gel (odorless, gel) and Lavit (perfumed, spray). Sterillium and desderman are EN1500 (hygienic hand rub) certified products (available in pharmacy) and Lavit is non EN1500 certified and available in supermarkets. The two EN1500 certified products were found to be significantly superior in terms of reducing bacterial load. desderman pure gel, Sterillium and Lavit reduced the bacterial count to 6.4%, 8.2% and 28.0% respectively. After education in the correct use of each hand rub, the bacterial load was reduced even further, demonstrating the value of education in improving hand hygiene. Information about the testers' perceptions of the three sanitizers, together with their expectations of a hand sanitizer was obtained through a questionnaire. Efficacy, followed by skin compatibility were found to be the two most important attributes of a hand disinfectant in our target group.

Indexed as

Residence CharacteristicsBacterial LoadChemistry, PharmaceuticalCohort StudiesHand HygieneHand SanitizersHumansOdorantsYoung AdultHand Sanitizers

Identifiers

PMID25379773
PMCPMC4224390
OpenAlexW2089166015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.