ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Commercial Disinfectants During Disinfection Process Validation: More Failures than Success.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of two commonly and limited used chemosterilants on Lucilia sericata egg surface sterilization.Parasitology research · 2025Article
- Optimization of sporulation and purification methods for sporicidal efficacy assessment on Bacillus spores.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDisinfection process validation is mandatory before introduction of a new disinfectant in hospital services. Commercial disinfection brands often question existing hospital policy claiming greater efficacy and lack of toxicity of their products. Inadvertent inadequate disinfection leads to morbidity, patient's economic burden, and the risk of mortality.
aimTo evaluate commercial disinfectants for high, intermediate and low-level disinfection so as to identify utility for our routine situations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis laboratory based experiment was conducted at St Stephen Hospital, Delhi during July-September 2013. Twelve commercial disinfectants: Sanidex®, Sanocid®, Cidex®, SekuSept Aktiv®, BIB Forte®, Alprojet W®, Desnet®, Sanihygiene®, Incidin®, D125®, Lonzagard®, and Glutishield® were tested. Time-kill assay (suspension test) was performed against six indicator bacteria (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella Typhi, Bacillus cereus, and Mycobacterium fortuitum). Low and high inoculum (final concentrations 1.5X10(6) and 9X10(6) cfu/ml) of the first five bacteria while only low level of M. fortuitum was tested.
resultsCidex® (2.4% Glutaraldehyde) performed best as high level disinfectant while newer quarternary ammonium compounds (QACs) (Incidin®, D125®, and Lonzagard®) were good at low level disinfection. Sanidex® (0.55% Ortho-pthalaldehyde) though mycobactericidal took 10 minutes for sporicidal activity. Older QAC containing BIB Forte® and Desnet® took 20 minutes to fully inhibit P. aeruginosa. All disinfectants effectively reduced S. Typhi to zero counts within 5 minutes.
conclusionCidex® is a good high-level disinfectant while newer QACs (Incidin®, D125®, and Lonzagard®) were capable low-level disinfectants.
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.