Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471395›Full record

ReviewAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2022

The in situ efficacy of whole room disinfection devices: a literature review with practical recommendations for implementation.

Caroline M van der Starre, Suzan A J Cremers-Pijpers, Carsten van Rossum, Edmée C Bowles, Alma Tostmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Impact ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Caroline M van der StarreUnit of Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Suzan A J Cremers-PijpersUnit of Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carsten van RossumUnit of Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Edmée C BowlesUnit of Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Alma TostmannUnit of Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. alma.tostmann@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTerminal cleaning and disinfection of hospital patient rooms must be performed after discharge of a patient with a multidrug resistant micro-organism to eliminate pathogens from the environment. Terminal disinfection is often performed manually, which is prone to human errors and therefore poses an increased infection risk for the next patients. Automated whole room disinfection (WRD) replaces or adds on to the manual process of disinfection and can contribute to the quality of terminal disinfection. While the in vitro efficacy of WRD devices has been extensively investigated and reviewed, little is known about the in situ efficacy in a real-life hospital setting. In this review, we summarize available literature on the in situ efficacy of WRD devices in a hospital setting and compare findings to the in vitro efficacy of WRD devices. Moreover, we offer practical recommendations for the implementation of WRD devices.

methodsThe in situ efficacy was summarized for four commonly used types of WRD devices: aerosolized hydrogen peroxide, H

resultsIn total, 54 articles were included. Articles reporting environmental outcomes of WRD devices had large variation in methodology, reported outcome measures, preparation of the patient room prior to environmental sampling, the location of sampling within the room and the moment of sampling. For the clinical outcome measures, all included articles reported the infection rate. Overall, these studies consistently showed that automated disinfection using any of the four types of WRD is effective in reducing environmental and clinical outcomes.

conclusionDespite the large variation in the included studies, the four automated WRD systems are effective in reducing the amount of pathogens present in a hospital environment, which was also in line with conclusions from in vitro studies. Therefore, the assessment of what WRD device would be most suitable in a specific healthcare setting mostly depends on practical considerations.

Indexed as

DisinfectionHydrogen PeroxideHumansPatients' RoomsUltraviolet RaysXenonHydrogen PeroxideXenonAerosolized hydrogen peroxideAutomated room disinfectionDecontaminationDisinfectionHospital acquired infectionsHydrogen peroxide vapourInfection prevention and controlPulsed-xenon ultravioletUltraviolet CWhole room disinfection

Identifiers

PMID36471395
PMCPMC9724435

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.