Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40901067›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Methods for assessing efficacy of cleaning and disinfection in livestock farms: a narrative review.

Iryna Makovska, Evelien Biebaut, Pankaj Dhaka, Leonid Korniienko, Julia Gabrielle Jerab, Laura Courtens, Ilias Chantziaras, Jeroen Dewulf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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. Review
  2. Impact of Farm Management Practices onFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  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

8 authors.

Iryna MakovskaVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Evelien BiebautVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Pankaj DhakaVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Leonid KorniienkoResearch Department of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases, State Scientific Research Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics and Veterinary and Sanitary Expertise, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Julia Gabrielle JerabVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Laura CourtensVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ilias ChantziarasVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Jeroen DewulfVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cleaning and disinfection (C&D) procedures are essential components of farm biosecurity, aiming to reduce microbial load and eliminate the pathogenic microorganisms in livestock farms facilities. This review examines the various methods used to assess the effectiveness of both cleaning and disinfection, exploring their strengths, limitations, and optimal-use scenarios. For cleaning evaluation, common methods include basic visual inspections, ultraviolet (UV) fluorescence, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence, rapid protein tests (RPT), redox potential, and microbiological swabbing. However, visual inspections and UV fluorescence alone provide only qualitative insights. ATP offers quantitative data, though the accuracy can be influenced by the presence of detergents or disinfectants, requiring careful calibration. Additionally, ATP and RPT testing demands standardization to ensure consistent results. A new promising redox method is fast and more accurate, however still has limited field applicability. Microbiological methods, while highly accurate in detecting microbial contamination, are resource-intensive and therefore not in frequent use for routine evaluation of the cleaning procedures. For assessment of disinfection procedures microbiological tests such as colony-forming unit counts on agar plates, as well as the use of selective media for target microbes or hygiene indicator organisms are more appropriate than non-microbiological tests as they offer direct evidence of microbial elimination. However, these methods can be labor-intensive and time-consuming. Molecular methods can be powerful tools in detecting hard-to-culture organisms, however, are more expensive and require specialized equipment. Given these challenges, our study recommends a comprehensive C&D evaluation protocol, incorporating multiple methods tailored to the farm's specific biosecurity needs and epidemiological context. This integrated approach improves the reliability and efficiency of C&D monitoring, ensuring robust hygiene management in farm settings.

Indexed as

ACPATPefficacy of C&Devaluation of cleaningevaluation of disinfectionfarm hygienemicrobiological methods

Identifiers

PMID40901067
PMCPMC12400523

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.