ArticleCureus2023
Environmental Contamination With SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
- Infectivity duration of HCoV-OC43, a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2, in artificial bodily fluids on stainless steel simulating common nonporous surfaces.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Controlling nosocomial transmission of respiratory infections in neurological wards: insights from COVID-19 pandemic data.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficacy of Peracetic Acid and Sodium Hypochlorite against SARS-CoV-2 on Contaminated Surfaces.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global concern and has changed the way we practice medicine in acute hospital settings. This is particularly true with regard to patient triage, patient risk assessment, use of personal protective equipment, and environmental disinfection. Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is primarily through inhalation of respiratory droplets generated through talking, coughing, or sneezing. There is, however, a potential risk that respiratory droplets settling on inanimate surfaces and objects in the hospital environment could provide a reservoir for nosocomial infections in patients and pose a healthcare risk to medical staff. Indeed, there have been previous reports of healthcare-associated outbreaks in hospitals. Several authors have argued that the risk of transmission via fomites may be insignificant. It is, however, not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are attributable to direct contact with fomites; a few reports have indicated possible transmission via this route. Environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare institutions has been shown to vary according to the function or service provided by a unit or department. Information that identifies hospital areas that have a propensity for higher environmental burden may improve the practice of infection control and environmental cleaning and decontamination in healthcare institutions. This study aimed to investigate environmental SARS-CoV-2 contamination in the clinical areas of patients with COVID-19 infection. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional study performing swabbing of frequently touched surfaces, equipment, and ventilation ducts in five specific clinical areas of Peterborough City Hospital which is part of the North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust. The five clinical areas that were chosen for swabbing were the Emergency Department (ED), Intensive Care Unit (ICU), Isolation Ward, Respiratory Ward, and a Gastroenterology Ward that was serving as a receiving ward at the height of the second COVID-19 infection wave in the United Kingdom. Surfaces to be swabbed were divided into the patient zone, doctor zone, and nursing zone. Swabs from the chosen surfaces were collected on two consecutive days. A total of 158 surface swabs were collected during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Results The most contaminated clinical areas were the three receiving wards where 12% (11/96) of the swabs were positive. Inside the patient rooms, these surfaces included bed rails and controls, bedside tables, television screens, remote control units, and the room ventilation system. Outside the patient room, these surfaces included mobile computers and computer desk surfaces in the doctors' offices. All swabs taken from the ED and ICU were found to be negative. Conclusions Our study confirms the potential infection risks posed by environmental contamination with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This highlights the importance of adequate environmental cleaning for proper infection control and prevention in healthcare settings.
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.