ArticleInfection prevention in practice2024
Evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of a far-uv radiation lamp in a real-life environment.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Using far-Ultraviolet-C (UVC) radiation with an emission maximum of 222 nm, has the potential to kill bacteria while not being harmful to humans and can be used continuously in public areas. Elevators pose a high risk of infection transmission, as they are small, crowded spaces with poor ventilation. In such a setting continuous decontamination would be very useful. This study aimed to measure the effectiveness of a far-UVC lamp installed in a frequently used elevator by comparing the bacterial load found in that elevator with the bacterial load in a control elevator. Methods: Microbial load was measured by different methods; ATP bioluminescence, surface samples were collected by contact slides, contact plates, and swabbing. Air samples were also collected. Results: No significant differences were found in the microbial content between the control elevator and the UV-lamp elevator, regardless of whether the UV-lamp was always on, or was used with a motion sensor to turn off when someone entered the elevator. Conclusions: The results suggest that the far-UVC requires a longer time to kill the bacteria, while the people traffic were continuously re-contaminating the elevators.
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.