ReviewEnvironmental health insights2025
Microbial Contamination of Door Handles: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Public and Healthcare Settings.
Review in Environmental health insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Touch, High-Risk: An Exploratory Microbiome Analysis of Hospital Wheelchairs.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Brookite-phase TiO₂ synthesized by Spinacia oleracea: structure, photocatalytic activity and light-enhanced antimicrobial efficacy.Discover nano · 2026Article
- First order, then wash your hands: quantification and identification of bacteria on self-ordering touchscreens in fast food restaurants at times of high and low occupancy.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Advanced synergistic antibacterial interfaces enabled by micro/nanostructure-superhydrophobicity coupling: mechanisms and applications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Bacterial diversity and antibiotic susceptibility profile of the isolates from public vehicles in Butwal Sub-Metropolitan City, Rupandehi, Nepal.PLOS global public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The public health risk of microbial contamination of fomites is evident from the numerous fomite-associated outbreaks that have occurred in several countries. Despite the high-touch nature of door handles across various settings, no comprehensive synthesis of contamination rates and microbial profiles has been performed. Aim: The aim of this work was to assess the prevalence and types of microbial contamination on door handles in public and healthcare settings. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published up to July 2024. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated via a random-effects model, and subgroup analyses were performed to assess differences on the basis of pathogen type, handle location, and setting. Results: A total of 27 studies met the eligibility criteria. The overall estimation of microbial contamination of door handles revealed a prevalence of 9.96% (95% CI: 5.87‒14.11). Compared with viral contamination which was observed to be 17.73% (95% CI: 9.24‒27.81), bacterial contamination was less common at 6.20% (95% CI: 2.90‒10.42). The most predominant bacterial agent was Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the widespread microbial contamination of door handles, particularly in public and healthcare environments. While bacterial contamination is predominant, the finding of viruses such as rotavirus, norovirus and even SARS-CoV-2 highlights the stringency of cleaning that has to be applied. These findings emphasise the need for targeted hygiene interventions to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission via door handles, particularly in high-traffic areas.
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.