Observational studyJournal of clinical nursing2024
Distribution and characteristics of bacteria on the hand during oropharyngeal swab collection: Which handwashing points are affected?
Observational study in Journal of clinical nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing hand hygiene compliance in healthcare settings: a long time intervention study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Distribution and characteristics of bacteria on the hand during oropharyngeal swab collection: Which handwashing points are affected?Journal of clinical nursing · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo identify the contaminated areas of the hand collection and analyse the distribution characteristics of bacteria in the hand after swab collection.
designThis study used a cross-sectional design.
methodsA cross-sectional study sampling 50 pairs of hands (sampling hand and auxiliary hand) of healthcare workers was performed. Ten samples were collected from each participant. The optimal hand hygiene rates and bacterial colony counts of the whole hand and different hand sections without hand hygiene were identified as the primary outcomes.
resultsThe optimal hand hygiene rates of the sampling hand and auxiliary hand were 88.8% (222/250) and 91.6% (229/250), respectively. The lowest optimal hand hygiene rates for the sampling hand and the auxiliary hand were both on the dorsal side of the finger and the dorsum of the hand (86.0%, 86.0% vs. 90.0%, 86.0%); the optimal hand hygiene rates for both sites of the sampling hand were 86.0% (43/50), and the optimal hand hygiene rates for the auxiliary hand were 90.0% (45/50) and 86.0% (43/50). The bacteria colony counts did not differ between the sampling hands and auxiliary hand.
conclusionsThe dorsal side of the finger and dorsum of the hand were the most likely to be contaminated during oropharyngeal swab collection. Therefore, it is essential to pay extra attention to hand hygiene care of these two sites during the collection process to minimize the risk of cross-contamination. REPORTING
methodThe Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were adopted in this study.
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.