Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39998007›Full record

ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Ultraviolet C Decontamination Devices in a Hospital Pharmacy: An Evaluation of Their Contribution.

Clara Baudart, Thomas Briot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Clara BaudartHospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Pharmacy Department, 69317 Lyon, France.
Thomas BriotHospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Pharmacy Department, 69317 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4693-4605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a major interest in ultraviolet C (UVC) disinfection devices and accelerated the implementation of UVC devices in healthcare facilities due to their proven efficacy in the inactivation of various pathogens. While UVC technology offers several advantages, some drawbacks remain. This report, drawing on studies, guidelines, and practical experiences related to the use of UVC technology in healthcare settings, examines the efficacy, advantages, and drawbacks of UVC devices, and their applications in aseptic drug-compounding pharmaceutical units. SUMMARY: Studies, guidelines, and practical experiences were selected. UVC technology offers advantages such as rapid disinfection, reduced reliance on chemical agents, minimal waste, and freedom from manual disinfection variability, making it particularly valuable for maintaining aseptic conditions in compounding environments. However, some drawbacks persist, as it is a germ-dependent method and there is currently no standardized method for ensuring effectiveness.

conclusionsThis opinion paper highlights the effectiveness of UCV technology in pharmaceutical compounding units, proving that it is a viable alternative to the traditionally used manual and operator-dependent methods. However, there is a need for standardized methods to evaluate UVC devices.

Indexed as

aseptic preparationsdisinfection methodsdrug compoundingmicrobial decontaminationrisk managementUVC

Identifiers

PMID39998007
PMCPMC11859781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.