ArticleScientific reports2026
Multidrug-resistant bacterial contamination of healthcare workers' mobile phones, decontamination efficacy, and potential implications for hospital-acquired infections.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Mobile phones are indispensable clinical tools for healthcare workers (HCWs), yet remain largely unaddressed within infection prevention and control (IPC) frameworks. Repeated handling during patient care combined with inconsistent disinfection may allow these devices to serve as multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism reservoirs contributing to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). A hospital-based cross-sectional analytical study with an embedded intervention and post-intervention follow-up was conducted at Menoufia University Hospitals, Egypt (2025-2026). Swabs from 300 HCWs' mobile phones across eight clinical areas were processed microbiologically and confirmed by Vitek 2. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing followed the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2025 guidelines. Bacterial burden was quantified by colony-forming units (CFU; low < 50, moderate 50-200, high > 200). Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase production were phenotypically confirmed, then genotypically characterized by multiplex PCR (blaTEM, blaSHV, blaCTX-M, blaOXA-48, blaNDM, blaIMP, blaVIM, blaKPC). Four decontamination methods were evaluated, and ward-level HAI rates correlated with MDR prevalence. Overall, 270/300 (90.0%) phones were contaminated, and 179/300 (59.6%) carried MDR organisms, with the highest burden in the intensive care unit (ICU). Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 29.4%) and S. aureus (25.4%), including methicillin-resistant strains (MRSA), predominated. Among Gram-negative isolates (n = 169), ESBL production was detected in 24.9% and carbapenemase in 13.0%; blaTEM (13.6%) and blaOXA-48 (4.7%) were most prevalent, respectively. Sodium hypochlorite-impregnated wipes achieved the greatest bacterial load reduction (96.5%). Only 9.0% of HCWs reported daily phone disinfection; phone use during invasive procedures was the strongest MDR risk factor (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.9; p < 0.001). At the ward level, MDR prevalence was strongly correlated with HAI rates (r = 0.986; p < 0.001). Post-intervention reductions in contamination (90.0%→78.0%), MDR carriage (59.6%→45.0%), and mean CFU (190.1 ± 80.3→95.5 ± 55.2) were all significant (p < 0.001). HCWs' mobile phones are potential reservoirs of MDR organisms, including clinically important ESKAPE-associated pathogens. Integrating standardized phone hygiene into IPC programs, supported by evidence-based decontamination and molecular surveillance, is warranted, particularly in high-acuity clinical settings.
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.