Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28351915›Full record

ArticlemBio2017

Comparison of Standard Culture-Based Method to Culture-Independent Method for Evaluation of Hygiene Effects on the Hand Microbiome.

C Zapka, J Leff, J Henley, J Tittl, E De Nardo, M Butler, R Griggs, N Fierer, S Edmonds-Wilson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Effective use of skin microbiome signatures for fingerprint identification.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C ZapkaGOJO Industries, Inc., Akron, Ohio, USA carriezapka@gmail.com WilsonSa@gojo.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7119-842X
J LeffDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
J HenleyDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
J TittlGOJO Industries, Inc., Akron, Ohio, USA.
E De NardoGOJO Industries, Inc., Akron, Ohio, USA.
M ButlerBioScience Laboratories, Inc., Bozeman, Montana, USA.
R GriggsBioScience Laboratories, Inc., Bozeman, Montana, USA.
N FiererDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
S Edmonds-WilsonGOJO Industries, Inc., Akron, Ohio, USA carriezapka@gmail.com WilsonSa@gojo.com.
Gojo (United States) · USCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences · USBioScience Laboratories (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hands play a critical role in the transmission of microbiota on one's own body, between individuals, and on environmental surfaces. Effectively measuring the composition of the hand microbiome is important to hand hygiene science, which has implications for human health. Hand hygiene products are evaluated using standard culture-based methods, but standard test methods for culture-independent microbiome characterization are lacking. We sampled the hands of 50 participants using swab-based and glove-based methods prior to and following four hand hygiene treatments (using a nonantimicrobial hand wash, alcohol-based hand sanitizer [ABHS], a 70% ethanol solution, or tap water). We compared results among culture plate counts, 16S rRNA gene sequencing of DNA extracted directly from hands, and sequencing of DNA extracted from culture plates. Glove-based sampling yielded higher numbers of unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) but had less diversity in bacterial community composition than swab-based sampling. We detected treatment-induced changes in diversity only by using swab-based samples (

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBacteriological TechniquesDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalFemaleHand DisinfectionHumansMetagenomicsMicrobiotaMontanaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNATreatment OutcomeYoung AdultDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16Shandhygienemicrobiome methodsskin bacteriaskin microbiome

Identifiers

PMID28351915
PMCPMC5371408
OpenAlexW2603148361

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.