ArticleEnfermeria clinica2021
[Disinfectants and antiseptics facing coronavirus: synthesis of evidence and recommendations].
Article in Enfermeria clinica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco.Annals of work exposures and health · 2021Article
- Knowledge, Perception, and Performance of Hand Hygiene and Their Correlation among Nursing Students in Republic of Korea.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The role of disinfectants and sanitizers during COVID-19 pandemic: advantages and deleterious effects on humans and the environment.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesize the available evidence on the use of antiseptics and disinfectants in the face of VIDOC-19 infection.
methodBibliographic search in the main databases (WOS, CCC, DIIDW, KJD, MEDLINE, RSCI, SCIELO, PubMed, BMJ Best Practice, Cochrane Library, UptoDate) and on the web of official bodies in March 2020, using descriptors and truncations. The search was limited to reviews published between 2016-2020.
resultsThirty-six papers were identified (no duplicates) of which 17 were selected for relevance and specificity and one paper was added from the literature review. In the documents finally used, no evidence was located, but experiences and recommendations of interest were found, highlighting the importance of material, environmental and, very significantly, hand disinfection.
conclusionThere is no clear evidence, nor are there clear recommendations for the use of one or another antiseptic, although the action of sodium hypochlorite, ethanol and hydrogen peroxide is highlighted in comparison to others such as benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidoeyodine and diluted ethyl alcohol. Particular importance is attached to their use in hand hygiene, the use of protective equipment and environmental disinfection.
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.