ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation and comparison of three virucidal agents on inactivation of Nipah virus.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hendra and Nipah viruses: Biosafety evidence for risk-based containment, inactivation practices, and one health preparedness.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Long-Term Efficacy of Disinfectants Against Ebola Virus and Nipah Virus for Use in Containment Level 4 Laboratories.Viruses · 2026Article
- Validation of Chemical Inactivation Protocols forViruses · 2026Article
- Article
- Nipah virus: a summary for clinicians.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Virucidal Approaches for Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses.Viruses · 2025Review
- Decontamination Validation of the BSL-4 Chemical Disinfectant Deluge Shower System.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2024Article
- Development of a pseudo-typed virus particle based method to determine the efficacy of virucidal agents.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern human activity is profoundly changing our relationship with microorganisms with the startling rise in the rate of emerging infectious diseases. Nipah virus together with Ebola virus and SARS-CoV-2 are prominent examples. Since COVID-19 and the West African Ebola virus disease outbreak, different chemical disinfectants have been developed for preventing the direct spread of viruses and their efficacy has also been evaluated. However, there are currently no published efficacy studies for the chemical disinfection of Nipah virus. In this study, the virucidal efficacy of three disinfectants (Micro-Chem Plus detergent disinfectant cleaner, FWD and Medical EtOH) against Nipah virus was evaluated in quantitative suspension tests including. Our results showed that the > 4 log reduction achieved for all products in inactivating Nipah virus in 15 s. Even, 19% ethanol was able to inactivate Nipah virus when applied for at least 8 min contact time. Comparative analysis displayed virucidal efficacy of each of the evaluated disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2, Ebola virus and Nipah virus, with only minor differences in working concentrations and contact times required for complete inactivation. We expect that our study can assist in decontamination in healthcare settings and high level biosafety laboratories and can be beneficial to control for emerging enveloped viruses.
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.