Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30485312›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A view to a kill? - Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods.

Birgit Fritz, Anne Jenner, Siegfried Wahl, Christian Lappe, Achim Zehender, Christian Horn, Frithjof Blessing, Matthias Kohl, Focke Ziemssen, Markus Egert

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comprehensive Compositional Analysis of the Slit Lamp Bacteriota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Birgit FritzFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Anne JennerFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Siegfried WahlCarl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Aalen, Germany.
Christian LappeCarl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Aalen, Germany.
Achim ZehenderCarl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Aalen, Germany.
Christian HornInstitute for Laboratory Medicine, Singen, Germany.
Frithjof BlessingInstitute for Laboratory Medicine, Singen, Germany.
Matthias KohlFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Group for Statistics in Biology and Medicine, Furtwangen University, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Focke ZiemssenCenter for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3873-0581
Markus EgertFaculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Institute of Precision Medicine, Microbiology and Hygiene Group, Furtwangen University, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Carl Zeiss (Germany) · DEFurtwangen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surfaces with regular contact with the human body are typically contaminated with microorganisms and might be considered as fomites. Despite spectacles being widespread across populations, little is known about their microbial contamination. Therefore, we swab-sampled 11 worn spectacles within a university setting as well as 10 worn spectacles in a nursing home setting. The microbial load was determined by aerobic cultivation. All spectacles were found to be contaminated with bacteria, with nose pads and ear clips having the highest density, i.e. at sites with direct skin contact. Summed over all sites, the median microbial load of the university spectacles (1.4 ± 10.7 x 10(3) CFU cm-2) did not differ significantly from the spectacles tested in the nursing home (20.8 ± 39.9 x 10(3) CFU cm-2). 215 dominant bacterial morphotypes were analyzed by MALDI biotyping. 182 isolates could be assigned to 10 genera, with Staphylococcus being the most common. On genus-level, bacterial diversity was greater on nursing home spectacles (10 genera) compared to the university environment (2 genera). Four cleaning methods were investigated using lenses artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli, Micrococcus luteus, a 1:2 mixture of E. coli and M. luteus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis (the dominant isolate in our study), respectively. Best cleaning results (99% -100% median germ reduction) were obtained using impregnated wipes; dry cleaning was less effective (85% -90% median germ reduction). Finally, 10 additional worn university spectacles were cleaned with wipes impregnated with an alcohol-free cleaning solution before sampling. The average bacterial load was significantly lower (0.09 ± 0.49 x 10(3) CFU cm-2) compared to the uncleaned university spectacles previously investigated. Spectacles are significantly contaminated with bacteria of mostly human skin origin-including significant amounts of potentially pathogenic ones and may contribute to eye infections as well as fomites in clinical environments.

Indexed as

AdultAged, 80 and overBacteriaBacterial LoadBacterial Typing TechniquesDisinfectantsDisinfectionEyeglassesFemaleFomitesGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSkinSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationDisinfectants

Identifiers

PMID30485312
PMCPMC6261565
OpenAlexW2902044733

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.