ArticleInfection prevention in practice2025
Improving ventilation hygiene in wards for immunocompromised patients: a workflow comparison of traditional and innovative duct cleaning methods.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: For a vulnerable hospital population, hospital ventilation systems can pose a risk if not maintained correctly. Dust accumulation in air ducts can create environments that allow fungal spores, such as Methods: We conducted a comparative evaluation of ventilation duct cleaning in adjacent hospital rooms. In one room, the ducts were accessed from within the room using a traditional brushing method, while in the other room, the ducts were primarily accessed from outside using a novel method including the use of newly developed low speed brushes and point extraction of debris. Air quality was monitored by counting particles every 15 minutes in 100-liter samples using a calibrated air sampler and collecting microbiological specimens before and after the cleaning process. Results: In-room cleaning caused a significant spike in airborne particles of all sizes, along with a modest increase in Conclusion: These findings highlight the risks associated with internal duct cleaning, especially for patients who are vulnerable to airborne fungal infections. External duct access proves to be a safer alternative, ensuring minimal disruption to the air quality in patient care areas. This study supports the necessity of strategic planning in hospital ventilation maintenance to protect vulnerable populations.
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.