Disinfection methods for preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings: A rapid review.

IF 0.8 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Public Health in Africa Pub Date : 2025-02-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jphia.v16i2.588
Joseph Okebe, Atana Ewa, Ememobong Aquaisua, Obasesam A Ikpi, Ella Olughu, Ebere C Chukwuemelie, Chukwudi Oringanje, Tochi Okwor, Martin Meremikwu
{"title":"Disinfection methods for preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings: A rapid review.","authors":"Joseph Okebe, Atana Ewa, Ememobong Aquaisua, Obasesam A Ikpi, Ella Olughu, Ebere C Chukwuemelie, Chukwudi Oringanje, Tochi Okwor, Martin Meremikwu","doi":"10.4102/jphia.v16i2.588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disinfectant sprays and wipes reduce the risk of infection from contaminated surfaces and materials in healthcare facilities. To support guideline updates, evidence on surface disinfection against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are needed.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to compare the effect of disinfection by spraying or wiping on the risk of human infections in healthcare facilities providing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) services.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Healthcare settings providing care for patients with COVID-19 or where exposure risk to COVID-19 is high.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of systematic review; PubMed, EMBASE and EPOC databases from 01 January 2020 to 31 August 2022. Results were screened for eligibility, the risk of bias in included studies assessed, and the certainty of evidence defined using GRADE<sup>®</sup>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three observational studies were included. Two studies reporting proportion of surfaces with residual contamination, showed contrasting results with spraying more effective (0%, [<i>n</i> = 0/39] vs. 25.6% [<i>n</i> = 23/90]) in one study but less effective (25.0% [<i>n</i> = 12/48] vs. 48.2% [<i>n</i> = 13/27]) in the other. The third study reported higher reductions from wiping (88.0%) compared to spraying (15.1%). The risk of bias ranged from moderate to serious and the certainty of the evidence was very low. No study reported a direct effect on the risk of infection in humans.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both spraying and wiping methods may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infections indirectly by reducing residual surface contamination.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>The use of both methods of disinfection in cleaning protocols indirectly reduces residual surface contamination.</p>","PeriodicalId":44723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","volume":"16 2","pages":"588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11905173/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.588","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Disinfectant sprays and wipes reduce the risk of infection from contaminated surfaces and materials in healthcare facilities. To support guideline updates, evidence on surface disinfection against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are needed.

Aim: This study aims to compare the effect of disinfection by spraying or wiping on the risk of human infections in healthcare facilities providing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) services.

Setting: Healthcare settings providing care for patients with COVID-19 or where exposure risk to COVID-19 is high.

Method: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of systematic review; PubMed, EMBASE and EPOC databases from 01 January 2020 to 31 August 2022. Results were screened for eligibility, the risk of bias in included studies assessed, and the certainty of evidence defined using GRADE®.

Results: Three observational studies were included. Two studies reporting proportion of surfaces with residual contamination, showed contrasting results with spraying more effective (0%, [n = 0/39] vs. 25.6% [n = 23/90]) in one study but less effective (25.0% [n = 12/48] vs. 48.2% [n = 13/27]) in the other. The third study reported higher reductions from wiping (88.0%) compared to spraying (15.1%). The risk of bias ranged from moderate to serious and the certainty of the evidence was very low. No study reported a direct effect on the risk of infection in humans.

Conclusion: Both spraying and wiping methods may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infections indirectly by reducing residual surface contamination.

Contribution: The use of both methods of disinfection in cleaning protocols indirectly reduces residual surface contamination.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在卫生保健机构预防COVID-19感染的消毒方法:快速回顾
背景:消毒剂喷雾剂和湿巾可降低卫生保健设施中受污染的表面和材料的感染风险。为了支持指南的更新,需要关于防止严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)感染的表面消毒的证据。目的:本研究旨在比较在提供2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)服务的医疗机构中,喷洒和擦拭消毒对人类感染风险的影响。环境:为COVID-19患者提供护理或暴露于COVID-19风险高的医疗保健环境。方法:检索中央对照试验注册库(Central Register of Controlled Trials, Central)和Cochrane系统评价数据库;PubMed, EMBASE和EPOC数据库,从2020年1月1日到2022年8月31日。筛选结果以确定入选资格、评估纳入研究的偏倚风险以及使用GRADE®定义证据的确定性。结果:纳入3项观察性研究。两项研究报告了残留污染表面的比例,结果形成对比:一项研究的喷洒效果更好(0%,[n = 0/39] vs. 25.6% [n = 23/90]),另一项研究的效果更差(25.0% [n = 12/48] vs. 48.2% [n = 13/27])。第三项研究报告说,与喷洒(15.1%)相比,擦拭(88.0%)的减少率更高。偏倚风险从中度到严重不等,证据的确定性非常低。没有研究报告对人类感染风险有直接影响。结论:喷洒和擦拭均可通过减少表面残留污染间接预防SARS-CoV-2感染。贡献:在清洁方案中使用两种消毒方法间接减少了残留的表面污染。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health in Africa
Journal of Public Health in Africa PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health in Africa (JPHiA) is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that focuses on health issues in the African continent. The journal editors seek high quality original articles on public health related issues, reviews, comments and more. The aim of the journal is to move public health discourse from the background to the forefront. The success of Africa’s struggle against disease depends on public health approaches.
期刊最新文献
Charting Africa's digital public health future: Five priorities for action. Traditional health practices in child care: Perceptions of caregivers in a township community. Evaluation of the concordance between nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs in the detection of COVID-19. Prioritisation and risk ranking of epidemic-prone diseases for emergency preparedness and response in Eastern Africa using a multi-criteria decision analysis framework, 2023. COVID-19 and ethics in action: Insights from African research committees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1