ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
A comparison of two cleaning methods applied in a small animal hospital.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. 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.
- Molecular Characterization of the Air Microbiome and Associated Toxicological Hazards in a Zoological Garden.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal healthcare is an important infection prevention and control measure to lower the risk of spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). There is a lack of reports on the effect of cleaning of near-patient surfaces in animal hospital wards. The aims of this study were to (1) determine bacterial load before cleaning, on near-patient surfaces in dog cages in a mixed medical and surgical ward and investigate factors associated with this bacterial load (2) compare the bacterial reduction on these surfaces after cleaning with (a) a scrubbing brush with detergent and rinsing before and after cleaning, and (b) a microfibre mop moistened with water, and after disinfection carried out after each cleaning method. In each cage the floor and the wall were sampled before cleaning, after cleaning, and after disinfection. Bacterial load and reduction were log
resultsThe bacterial load in dog cages before cleaning varied, higher loads were noted after longer stay in the cage. The bacterial reduction was in most cases more effective after cleaning with scrubbing brushes with detergent compared to cleaning with damp microfibre mops. After cleaning, a majority of the samples were below the suggested threshold value 2.5 CFU/cm
conclusionsOverall, the bacterial load was below the suggested threshold value after decontamination, except after microfibre cleaning of the floor. Scrub cleaning with a detergent should be considered for cleaning of anti-slip surfaces like the cage floor. The study shows a need for evidence-based cleaning and disinfection routines for near-patient surfaces and evidence-based threshold values for bacterial load, to reduce the risk of HAIs.
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.