Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33579386›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices.

Stephanie J Dancer, Marco-Felipe King

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Does repeated exposure to hydrogen peroxide induce Candida auris resistance?Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023
    Article
  7. Hospital cleaning: past, present, and future.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023
    Review
  8. UV Disinfection Robots: A Review.Robotics and autonomous systems · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Is It Possible to Eradicate Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie J DancerDepartment of Microbiology, Hairmyres Hospital, NHS, Lanarkshire, G75 8RG, Scotland, UK. stephanie.dancer@lanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8777-2614
Marco-Felipe KingSchool of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Edinburgh Napier University · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations.

objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate published studies describing the effect of automated technologies delivering hydrogen peroxide (H202) or ultra-violet (UV) light on HAI rates.

methodsA systematic review was performed using relevant search terms. Databases were scanned from January 2005 to March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcome after use of automated devices on healthcare surfaces. Information collected included device type, overall findings; hospital and ward data; study location, length and size; antimicrobial consumption; domestic monitoring; and infection control interventions. Study sponsorship and duplicate publications were also noted.

resultsWhile there are clear benefits from non-touch devices in vitro, we found insufficient objective assessment of patient outcome due to the before-and-after nature of 36 of 43 (84%) studies. Of 43 studies, 20 (47%) used hydrogen peroxide (14 for outbreaks) and 23 (53%) used UV technology (none for outbreaks). The most popular pathogen targeted, either alone or in combination with others, was Clostridium difficile (27 of 43 studies: 63%), followed by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16 of 43: 37%). Many owed funding and/or personnel to industry sponsorship (28 of 43: 65%) and most were confounded by concurrent infection control, antimicrobial stewardship and/or cleaning audit initiatives. Few contained data on device costs and rarely on comparable costs (1 of 43: 2%). There were expected relationships between the country hosting the study and location of device companies. None mentioned the potential for environmental damage, including effects on microbial survivors.

conclusionThere were mixed results for patient benefit from this review of automated devices using H202 or UV for surface decontamination. Most non-outbreak studies lacked an appropriate control group and were potentially compromised by industry sponsorship. Concern over HAI encourages delivery of powerful disinfectants for eliminating pathogens without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Routine use of these devices requires justification from standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments.

Indexed as

Infection ControlCross InfectionDecontaminationDisinfectantsEuropeHumansHydrogen PeroxideTreatment OutcomeUltraviolet RaysUnited StatesDisinfectantsHydrogen PeroxideCostDecontaminationEnvironmentHospital-acquired infectionHydrogen peroxideToxicityUltraviolet light

Identifiers

PMID33579386
PMCPMC7881692
OpenAlexW3126837984

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.