ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Development and application of a wipe sampling method for detection of antibiotic surface contamination in hospital wards.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. 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.
- Occupational Anaphylaxis to Piperacillin-Tazobactam in a Nurse: A Case Report.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsArticle
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
backgroundAntibiotics are handled in large amounts at hospitals at many different wards due to the wide range of bacterial infections that are treated. Unnecessary use and occupational exposure to antibiotics should be avoided due to the risk of bacterial resistance development and adverse health effects including skin and respiratory hypersensitivity reactions in persons handling these drugs.
objectivesTo develop a wipe test method for sampling and quantification of surface contaminations of antibiotics, to assess the current contamination levels in Swedish hospitals, and to propose hygienic guidance values for antibiotics based on these measurements.
methodsA screening wipe test method and subsequent mass spectrometric analysis of 6 of the most frequently used antibiotics in healthcare was developed and applied in a screening campaign of 16 hospital wards. Wipe tests were sampled from surfaces such as workbenches, floors, storage shelves and handles in medicine rooms, patient rooms, rinsing rooms, utility rooms and corridors.
resultsAntibiotics were detected in most of the samples (cefotaxime 84% positive samples, piperacillin 81%, cloxacillin 65%, metronidazole 53%, ciprofloxacin 20%, and penicillin V 14%). Median values ranged from not detected up to 160 pg/cm2 for the 6 different compounds and the highest results from an individual wipe sample were 27 × 106 pg/cm2 (cefotaxime) and 3.0 × 106 pg/cm2 (piperacillin). For cloxacillin, piperacillin, and metronidazole, lower levels of contamination were observed in medicine rooms when closed systems were used compared with samples collected in rooms where preparations were made without closed systems. Comparison of contamination levels showed that there were significant differences between different surface categories. Out of the most frequently detected antibiotics, ie cloxacillin, piperacillin, and cefotaxime, highest median values were found for surface categories floor and storage whereas lower median values were found for workbenches.
conclusionA widespread environmental contamination of antibiotics was observed in hospital wards that potentially can contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as health impacts of exposed personnel. Probable sources include compounding, handling and administration of drug tablets, antibiotic contaminated waste as well as other sources such as excretions from patients and contaminated drug vials. Current surface cleaning routines do not sufficiently reduce spills and leakage regardless of source.
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.