Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231311›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Handwashing and Ebola virus disease outbreaks: A randomized comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the inactivation and removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from hands and persistence in rinse water.

Marlene K Wolfe, Karin Gallandat, Kyle Daniels, Anne Marie Desmarais, Pamela Scheinman, Daniele Lantagne

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Quantifying the Viral Reduction Achieved Using Ash and Sand as Handwashing Agents.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marlene K WolfeDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6476-0450
Karin GallandatDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Kyle DanielsDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Anne Marie DesmaraisDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Pamela ScheinmanDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Daniele LantagneDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Tufts University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To prevent Ebola transmission, frequent handwashing is recommended in Ebola Treatment Units and communities. However, little is known about which handwashing protocol is most efficacious. We evaluated six handwashing protocols (soap and water, alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), and 0.05% sodium dichloroisocyanurate, high-test hypochlorite, and stabilized and non-stabilized sodium hypochlorite solutions) for 1) efficacy of handwashing on the removal and inactivation of non-pathogenic model organisms and, 2) persistence of organisms in rinse water. Model organisms E. coli and bacteriophage Phi6 were used to evaluate handwashing with and without organic load added to simulate bodily fluids. Hands were inoculated with test organisms, washed, and rinsed using a glove juice method to retrieve remaining organisms. Impact was estimated by comparing the log reduction in organisms after handwashing to the log reduction without handwashing. Rinse water was collected to test for persistence of organisms. Handwashing resulted in a 1.94-3.01 log reduction in E. coli concentration without, and 2.18-3.34 with, soil load; and a 2.44-3.06 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 2.71-3.69 with, soil load. HTH performed most consistently well, with significantly greater log reductions than other handwashing protocols in three models. However, the magnitude of handwashing efficacy differences was small, suggesting protocols are similarly efficacious. Rinse water demonstrated a 0.28-4.77 log reduction in remaining E. coli without, and 0.21-4.49 with, soil load and a 1.26-2.02 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 1.30-2.20 with, soil load. Chlorine resulted in significantly less persistence of E. coli in both conditions and Phi6 without soil load in rinse water (p<0.001). Thus, chlorine-based methods may offer a benefit of reducing persistence in rinse water. We recommend responders use the most practical handwashing method to ensure hand hygiene in Ebola contexts, considering the potential benefit of chlorine-based methods in rinse water persistence.

Indexed as

ChlorineHand SanitizersSoapsAdolescentBacteriophage phi 6Disease OutbreaksEscherichia coliFemaleHand DisinfectionHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansMaleWater MicrobiologyYoung AdultChlorineHand SanitizersSoaps

Identifiers

PMID28231311
PMCPMC5322913
OpenAlexW2591238597

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.