Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40837594›Full record

ArticleVeterinary record open2025

Bacterial contamination on mobile phones in the theatre area of a large veterinary hospital.

Owen J Glenn, Lisa Telford, Kathryn M Pratschke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary record open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Owen J GlennHospital for Small Animals The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5930-5376
Lisa TelfordHospital for Small Animals The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.
Kathryn M PratschkeHospital for Small Animals The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1468-9967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mobile phones are commonly used in clinical areas, including theatre, anaesthesia and patient preparation. Contamination rates of 72.6%-100% for mobile phones are reported in human healthcare, including multidrug-resistant bacteria in more than 30%. Veterinary studies are limited to Methods: The personal and work mobile phones of veterinarians and nurses were swabbed for bacterial culture. Gram morphology and colony-forming units per millilitre (CFU/mL) were recorded for each bacteria grown. Participants completed an anonymous survey detailing habits of phone usage and hygiene. Results: Swabs from 39 mobile phones were collected, with 16 of 39 (41%) positive for bacterial contamination. Gram-positive cocci were most common (38.4%), with 5.13% Gram-positive coccobacilli, 5.13% Gram-positive rods and 2.56% Gram-negative rods. Veterinarians' mobile phones had a significantly higher incidence of contamination than nurses' (62.5% vs. 6.7%; Conclusions: Bacterial contamination of mobile phones was common, with veterinarians having a significantly higher incidence compared to nurses. Gram-positive cocci were most common, but Gram-positive coccobacilli, Gram-positive rods and Gram-negative rods were also present. Mobile phone hygiene could be usefully included in infection control guidelines as they are potential fomites for healthcare-associated infections.

Identifiers

PMID40837594
PMCPMC12362166

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.