ArticleInfection prevention in practice2026
A novel method of simulated-use surface disinfection efficacy testing as Phase 3 Step 1 approach.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Standard laboratory tests for surface disinfectants often fail to reflect real-life clinical conditions, potentially overestimating efficacy. Simulated-use testing that incorporates clinical strains, realistic contamination and user application may provide a more accurate reflection of in-use performance in healthcare settings. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a standardized, reproducible Phase 3 Step 1 simulated-use surface disinfection test that incorporates clinically relevant organisms, hospital-representative surfaces, and realistic application methods. Methods: Based on EN 16615:2015, the test method was modified to reflect hospital conditions more closely. Clinically isolated outbreak strains of Findings: The touch-transfer contamination method was reproducible, and no significant differences were observed in drying or water controls across different surfaces. Wiping speed and contact pressure did not correlate with efficacy. However, microbial recovery varied across test runs and participants. The test method presented here allows for efficacy testing of commercial disinfectants. Conclusion: A Phase 3 Step 1 simulated-use test was established, which incorporates micro-organisms isolated from the application area, surfaces representative of the application area, and where the product is applied by trained participants. This internally validated method better represents clinical disinfection practices compared with current standardized tests and may support improved assessment of surface disinfectant efficacy under conditions approximating real-world hospital use.
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.