ArticleHeliyon2022
Hand hygiene products and adverse skin reactions: A cross-sectional comparison between healthcare and non-healthcare workers of Bangladesh during COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contact dermatitis caused by prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Hand Sanitizer Use During the Pandemic: Frequency and Health Effects Among Healthcare and Non-Healthcare Professionals.Workplace health & safety · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The deadly COVID-19 pandemic has swept the globe since December 2019. Due to the significant risk of infection, frontline health workers had to use Personal Protective Equipment and hand hygiene products, to help prevent transmission of infection. The present study aims to compare the adverse skin responses between healthcare workers (HCW) and non-healthcare workers (NHCW). Materials and methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study of HCW and NHCW throughout the country wa executed. A self-structured questionnaire was utilized to gather data from 404 HCWs and 826 NHCWs during a two-month period using multistage sampling. STATA (v16) was used to analyse the data. Results: 41.87% of the study participants experienced adverse skin reactions, which were more prevalent amongs HCW (65.10%) than NHCW (30.51%). The most frequently reported skin condition was skin dryness (34.39%), followed by skin peeling (11.71%). Users of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) were more likely to get itch (8.13%), whereas soap water users were more likely to suffer from skin peeling (35.74%) and rash (7.46%). There was a significant (p < 0.001) association between occupation and adverse skin responses, with HCW being 3.5 times more likely to have adverse skin manifestations than NHCW. Conclusion: The research showed that healthcare workers were at a greater risk to developing skin reactions than the overall population with frequent use of hand hygiene measures being a significant risk factor.
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.