Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033810›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2022

WASH to control COVID-19: A rapid review.

Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Anju Sinha, Gaurav Mishra, Syed Ziauddin Quazi, Shilpa Gaidhane, Deepak Saxena, Abhay M Gaidhane, Pankaj Bhardwaj, Shailendra Sawleshwarkar, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. WASH to control COVID-19: A rapid review.Frontiers in public health · 2022
    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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Mahalaqua Nazli KhatibDivision of Evidence Synthesis, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Anju SinhaDivision of Reproductive, Maternal and Child Health, Indian Council of Medical Research Headquarters, New Delhi, India.
Gaurav MishraDepartment of Radiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Syed Ziauddin QuaziSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Shilpa GaidhaneDepartment of Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Deepak SaxenaDepartment of Public Health, Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, India.
Abhay M GaidhaneJawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Pankaj BhardwajDepartment of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Shailendra SawleshwarkarFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Quazi Syed ZahiruddinCentre for Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI), School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India.
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College · INDatta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Jodhpur · INIndian Council of Medical Research · INIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar · INUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preventive public health has been suggested as methods for reducing the transmission of COVID-19. Safety and efficacy of one such public health measure: WASH intervention for COVID-19 has not been systematically reviewed. We undertook a rapid review to assess the effect of WASH intervention in reducing the incidence of COVID-19. Methods: We conducted searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We undertook screening of studies in two stages and extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence for the primary outcome using GRADE recommendations. Main results: We included a total of 13 studies with three studies on COVID-19 and 10 on SARS. The study found that hand washing, sterilization of hands, gargling, cleaning/shower after attending patients of COVID-19, or SARS was protective. Evidence also found that frequent washes can prevent SARS transmission among HCWs. However; one study reported that due to enhanced infection-prevention measures, front-line HCWs are more prone to hand-skin damage. The certainty of the evidence for our primary outcome as per GRADE was very low. We did not find any studies that assessed the effect of WASH on hospitalizations, and mortality due to COVID-19. Also; we did not find any study that compared WASH interventions with any other public health measures. Conclusions: Current evidence of WASH interventions for COVID-19 is limited as it is largely based on indirect evidence from SARS. Findings from the included studies consistently show that WASH is important in reducing the number of cases during a pandemic. Timely implementation of WASH along with other public health interventions can be vital to ensure the desired success. Further good-quality studies providing direct evidence of the efficacy of WASH on COVID-19 are needed.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hand DisinfectionHumansIncidencePandemicsPublic HealthCOVID-19hygieneinterventionspublic healthsanitationSARSwater sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

Identifiers

PMID36033810
PMCPMC9403322
OpenAlexW4291014996

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.