ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Effect of long-lasting antimicrobial surface sprays in real-life environment.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- IMPROVING HAND HYGIENE IN CRUISE SHIP: AN INTERVENTION STUDY.Open research Europe · 2025Article
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
Antimicrobial surfaces have the potential to continuously self-decontaminate, which can play a key role in infection control. Various surface treatment sprays are available on the market today, differing in their chemical compositions and active ingredients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of these surface treatment sprays in real-life settings. The effects of the sprays were examined both in vitro, using bacterial suspensions, and in real-life settings. Effectiveness was measured by the number of colony-forming units (CFU) and by ATP tests. Additionally, the microbiome of one door opener was sequenced to identify the predominant microbes on that surface. Sequencing revealed that the microbiome of the door openers is mainly composed of skin bacteria. Staphylococcus (49.2%) and Micrococcus (33.6%) were the dominant genera identified in the sample. In vitro experiments demonstrated that all spray treatments were effective when tested against bacteria in suspension. However, in real-life settings, none of our measurements detected a significant reduction in microbial presence following spray treatment. We hypothesize that this discrepancy is due to the presence of a fatty substance, likely from fingerprints, on surfaces. This oily layer may act as a barrier that physically separates microbes from the treated surfaces, thereby diminishing the efficacy of the antimicrobial sprays.
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.