ArticleScientific reports2024
Study on hand disinfection in inpatient geriatric care on the superiority of cold plasma aerosol versus alcohol-based disinfection methods in a parallel group design.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cold Atmospheric Plasma-Aerosol Treatment of Equine Antibiotic-Resistant Wound Infection: A Preliminary Case Series.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- New approaches to disinfection of thermolabile medical devices using an indirect method with cold atmospheric plasma-aerosol.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of antimicrobial effects of a contactless, indirect cold atmospheric plasma-aerosol method for germ reduction on surfaces: anFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of fundamental hygiene protocols within the healthcare sector during the nineteenth century led to a significant reduction in mortality rates. Contemporary advancements, such as alcohol-based sanitizers, have further enhanced hand hygiene practices. However, these measures are often overlooked in nursing facilities, resulting in low staff compliance rates and increased cross-infection rates. Novel approaches, such as cold plasma hand disinfection, present promising alternatives due to their minimal skin damage and economic benefits. This study aims to compare the disinfectant efficacy of cold plasma aerosol under practical application conditions with an alcoholic hand disinfectant listed by the Association for Applied Hygiene. The microbial count on participants' hands was measured, with particular attention paid to the spontaneous occurrence of fecal indicators and the presence of potentially infectious bacteria. A t-test for independent samples was conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the two cohorts regarding the research question. Statistical analysis revealed that the mean log colony-forming unit (CFU) values were significantly lower in the test cohort using only the cold plasma method for hand disinfection compared to the cohort using conventional alcohol-based hand disinfection. Moreover, it was demonstrated that, unlike alcohol-based hand disinfection, cold plasma application ensures the effective elimination of Staphylococcus aureus. The findings indicate that staff utilizing plasma disinfection have an average bacterial count that is 0.65 log units lower than those who regularly use alcohol-based hand disinfection. In addition to the efficacy of cold plasma disinfection, its superiority over alcohol-based hand disinfection was also established. Beyond offering economic and logistical advantages, cold plasma disinfection provides additional health benefits as it does not induce skin damage, unlike alcohol-based hand disinfection.
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.