-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2012, and twice in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications. We also assessed the side effects of vaginal cleansing solutions to determine adverse events associated with the intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials and one quasi-randomized trial assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Cluster-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We excluded trials that utilized vaginal preparation during labor or that did not use antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. We also excluded any trials using a cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three of the review authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies. Two review authors were assigned to extract study characteristics, quality assessments, and data from eligible studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials reporting results for 3403 women evaluating the effects of vaginal cleansing (eight using povidone-iodine, two chlorhexidine, one benzalkonium chloride) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Additionally, some trials used vaginal preparations using sponge sticks, douches, or soaked gauze wipes. The control groups were typically no vaginal preparation (eight trials) or the use of a saline vaginal preparation (three trials). The risk of bias in the studies reduced our confidence in the results for endometritis outcomes.Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 8.7% in control groups to 3.8% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.63, 10 trials, 3283 women, moderate quality of evidence). Subgroup analysis could not rule out larger reductions in endometritis with antiseptics in women who were in labor or in women whose membranes had ruptured when antiseptics were used. Risks of postoperative fever and postoperative wound infection may be slightly lowered by antiseptic preparation, but the confidence intervals around the effects for both outcomes are consistent with a large reduction in risk and no difference between groups (fever: RR 0.87 (0.72 to 1.05; wound infection: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.11), both moderate-quality evidence). Two trials reported a lower risk of a composite outcome of wound complication or endometritis in women receiving preoperative vaginal preparation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82, two trials, 499 women, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse effects were reported with either the povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine vaginal cleansing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine solution compared to saline or not cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the risk of post-cesarean endometritis. Subgroup analysis could not rule out larger reductions in endometritis with antiseptics in women who were in labor or in women whose membranes had ruptured when antiseptics were used.The quality of the evidence using GRADE was moderate for all reported outcomes. We downgraded the outcome of post-cesarean endometritis and composite of wound complications or endometritis for risk of bias and postoperative fever and postoperative wound infections for wide CIs.As a simple, generally inexpensive intervention, providers may consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine before performing cesarean deliveries.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Benzalkonium Compounds; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Vagina
PubMed: 30016540
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007892.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death).
MAIN RESULTS
Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain. The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.
Topics: Age Factors; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Chlorhexidine; Cross-Over Studies; Hand Hygiene; Hand Sanitizers; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Nursing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soaps; Triclosan
PubMed: 33471367
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013326.pub2 -
Journal of Dairy Science Jan 2024A systematic literature review of in vitro studies was performed to identify methane (CH) mitigation interventions with a potential to reduce CH emission in vivo. Data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic literature review of in vitro studies was performed to identify methane (CH) mitigation interventions with a potential to reduce CH emission in vivo. Data from 277 peer-reviewed studies published between 1979 and 2018 were reviewed. Individual CH mitigation interventions were classified into 14 categories of feed additives based on their type, chemical composition, and mode of action. Response variables evaluated were absolute CH emission (number of treatment means comparisons = 1,325); total volatile fatty acids (n = 1,007), acetate (n = 783), propionate (n = 792), and butyrate (n = 776) concentrations; acetate to propionate ratio (n = 675); digestibility of dry matter (n = 489), organic matter (n = 277), and neutral detergent fiber (n = 177). Total gas production was used as an explanatory variable in the model for CH production. Relative mean difference between treatment and control means reported in the studies was calculated and used for statistical analysis. The robust variance estimation method was used to analyze the effects of CH mitigation interventions. In vitro CH production was decreased by antibodies (-38.9%), chemical inhibitors (-29.2%), electron sinks (-18.9%), essential oils (-18.2%), plant extracts (-14.5%), plant inclusion (-11.7%), saponins (-14.8%), and tannins (-14.5%). Overall effects of direct-fed microbials, enzymes, macroalgae, and organic acids supplementation did not affect CH production in the current meta-analysis. When considering the effects of individual mitigation interventions containing a minimum number of 4 degrees of freedom within feed additives categories, Enterococcus spp. (i.e., direct-fed microbial), nitrophenol (i.e., electron sink), and Leucaena spp. (i.e., tannins) decreased CH production by 20.3%, 27.1%, and 23.5%, respectively, without extensively, or only slightly, affecting ruminal fermentation and digestibility of nutrients. It should be noted, however, that although the total number of publications (n = 277) and treatment means comparisons (n = 1,325 for CH production) in the current analysis were high, data for most mitigation interventions were obtained from less than 5 observations (e.g., maximum number of observations was 4, 7, and 22 for nitrophenol, Enterococcus spp., and Leucaena spp., respectively), because of limited data available in the literature. These should be further evaluated in vitro and in vivo to determine their true potential to decrease enteric CH production, yield, and intensity. Some mitigation interventions (e.g., magnesium, Heracleum spp., nitroglycerin, β-cyclodextrin, Leptospermum pattersoni, Fructulus Ligustri, Salix caprea, and Sesbania grandiflora) decreased in vitro CH production by over 50% but did not have enough observations in the database. These should be more extensively investigated in vitro, and the dose effect must be considered before adoption of mitigation interventions in vivo.
Topics: Female; Animals; Diet; Milk; Lactation; Propionates; Methane; Tannins; Rumen; Acetates; Nitrophenols; Fermentation; Digestion; Animal Feed
PubMed: 38353472
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0302(23)00819-6 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Nov 2021Small ruminants such as goats have a higher preference for browse species than cattle and sheep. In a meta-analysis of 42 papers describing 117 experimental treatments... (Review)
Review
Small ruminants such as goats have a higher preference for browse species than cattle and sheep. In a meta-analysis of 42 papers describing 117 experimental treatments found by a search performed in June 2021 in PubMed and Web of Knowledge, we examined the general effect of including foliage in the diet of goats, replacing grasses, on dry matter intake and average daily weight gain. The inclusion requirement for a paper was that it described a controlled trial with a control diet of grass and with grass replaced by foliage in the experimental diet. Publication bias was estimated by calculating the Fail-safe n. Random effects analyses were conducted, using effect size calculated as Hedges' d. The results showed that inclusion of foliage increased feed intake (Hedges' d = 1.350, SE = 0.388) and average daily weight gain (Hedges' d = 1.417, SE = 0.444) compared with a grass-based control. The positive effect of foliage inclusion on dry matter intake was associated with lower neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and higher crude protein (CP) in the foliage than in the grass it replaced. The positive effect on average daily weight gain was associated with higher CP concentration in the foliage than in grass. Foliage inclusion level showed a quadratic relationship with dry matter intake, with maximum dry matter intake achieved at a level of 50-60%. There was wide variation between the studies reviewed, and this variation was not reduced by subgroup analysis based on different kinds of foliage. In conclusion, the addition of foliage to goat diets can increase feed intake and daily weight gain, as an effect of the dietary preferences of goats and of generally higher nutritional value in foliage species compared with natural/semi-natural grass species.
PubMed: 34827895
DOI: 10.3390/ani11113163 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2019Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) and bile acid-related diarrhea represent an under-recognized cause of chronic diarrhea mainly because of limited guidance on appropriate...
BACKGROUND
Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) and bile acid-related diarrhea represent an under-recognized cause of chronic diarrhea mainly because of limited guidance on appropriate diagnostic and laboratory tests. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature in order to identify and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different diagnostic methods for patients with BAM, despite a proven gold standard test is still lacking.
METHODS
A PubMed literature review and a manual search were carried out. Relevant full papers, evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different methods for BAM, were assessed. Available data were analyzed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each published test.
RESULTS
Overall, more than one test was considered in published papers on BAM. The search strategy retrieved 574 articles; of these, only 16 were full papers (with a total of 2.332 patients) included in the final review. Specifically, n = 8 studies used Selenium-homotaurocholic-acid-test (SeHCAT) with a < 10% retention threshold; n = 8 studies evaluated fasting serum 7-α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4); n = 3 studies involved total fecal bile acid (BA) excretion over 48 h; n = 4 studies assessed fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19). SeHCAT showed an average sensitivity and specificity of 87.32 and 93.2%, respectively, followed by serum C4 (85.2 and 71.1%) and total fecal BA (66.6 and 79.3%). Fasting serum FGF19 had the lowest sensitivity and specificity (63.8 and 72.3%). All the extracted data were associated with substantial heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review indicates that SeHCAT has the highest diagnostic accuracy for BAM, followed by serum C4 assay. The diagnostic yield of fecal BA and FGF19 assays is still under investigation. Our review reinforces the need for novel biomarkers aimed to an objective detection of BAM and therefore improving the management of this condition.
Topics: Bile Acids and Salts; Biomarkers; Humans; Intestinal Reabsorption; Malabsorption Syndromes; Sensitivity and Specificity; Taurocholic Acid
PubMed: 31726982
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-019-1102-1 -
Environmental Health : a Global Access... Mar 2018In the last decade unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction has rapidly proliferated throughout the United States (US) and the world. This occurred largely because of...
BACKGROUND
In the last decade unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction has rapidly proliferated throughout the United States (US) and the world. This occurred largely because of the development of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing which allows access to fossil fuels from geologic formations that were previously not cost effective to pursue. This process is known to use greater than 1,000 chemicals such as solvents, surfactants, detergents, and biocides. In addition, a complex mixture of chemicals, including heavy metals, naturally-occurring radioactive chemicals, and organic compounds are released from the formations and can enter air and water. Compounds associated with UOG activity have been linked to adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes in humans and laboratory animal models, which is possibly due to the presence of endocrine active chemicals.
METHODS
Using systematic methods, electronic searches of PubMed and Web of Science were conducted to identify studies that measured chemicals in air near sites of UOG activity. Records were screened by title and abstract, relevant articles then underwent full text review, and data were extracted from the studies. A list of chemicals detected near UOG sites was generated. Then, the potential endocrine activity of the most frequently detected chemicals was explored via searches of literature from PubMed.
RESULTS
Evaluation of 48 studies that sampled air near sites of UOG activity identified 106 chemicals detected in two or more studies. Ethane, benzene and n-pentane were the top three most frequently detected. Twenty-one chemicals have been shown to have endocrine activity including estrogenic and androgenic activity and the ability to alter steroidogenesis. Literature also suggested that some of the air pollutants may affect reproduction, development, and neurophysiological function, all endpoints which can be modulated by hormones. These chemicals included aromatics (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury.
CONCLUSION
These results provide a basis for prioritizing future primary studies regarding the endocrine disrupting properties of UOG air pollutants, including exposure research in wildlife and humans. Further, we recommend systematic reviews of the health impacts of exposure to specific chemicals, and comprehensive environmental sampling of a broader array of chemicals.
Topics: Air Pollutants; Animals; Endocrine Disruptors; Environmental Exposure; Environmental Monitoring; Humans; Oil and Gas Fields
PubMed: 29558955
DOI: 10.1186/s12940-018-0368-z -
Journal of Food Protection Jun 2016Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to... (Review)
Review
Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to prevent transmission of enteric pathogens via cross-contamination from infected persons. Conventional hand washing involves the use of water, soap, and friction to remove dirt and microorganisms. The availability of hand sanitizing products for use when water and soap are unavailable has increased in recent years. The aim of this systematic review was to collate scientific information on the efficacy of hand sanitizers compared with washing hands with soap and water for the removal of foodborne pathogens from the hands of food handlers. An extensive literature search was carried out using three electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Twenty-eight scientific publications were ultimately included in the review. Analysis of this literature revealed various limitations in the scientific information owing to the absence of a standardized protocol for evaluating the efficacy of hand products and variation in experimental conditions. However, despite conflicting results, scientific evidence seems to support the historical skepticism about the use of waterless hand sanitizers in food preparation settings. Water and soap appear to be more effective than waterless products for removal of soil and microorganisms from hands. Alcohol-based products achieve rapid and effective inactivation of various bacteria, but their efficacy is generally lower against nonenveloped viruses. The presence of food debris significantly affects the microbial inactivation rate of hand sanitizers.
Topics: Hand; Hand Disinfection; Hand Sanitizers; Humans; Soaps; Water
PubMed: 27296611
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-492 -
Food and Waterborne Parasitology Mar 2022The cestode family Taeniidae consists of the genera and , both of which include zoonotic tapeworms of serious public health importance. Various environmental matrices...
The cestode family Taeniidae consists of the genera and , both of which include zoonotic tapeworms of serious public health importance. Various environmental matrices have been identified from which parasite transmission to animals and humans can occur, and many techniques for detecting taeniid eggs in different environments have been developed. However, the majority lack appropriate validation, and standardized egg isolation procedures are absent. This hampers interstudy comparisons and poses a challenge for future researchers when deciding which technique to implement for assessing taeniid egg contamination in a particular matrix. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to present an overview of the detection methods for taeniid eggs in the environment, to discuss and compare them, and to provide recommendations for future studies. In total, 1814 publications were retrieved from scientific databases, and, ultimately, data were systematically reviewed from 90 papers. The results provide an overview of numerous diagnostic tests for taeniid egg detection in (or on) water, food, soil, insects, objects, and air. These tools could be categorized as either conventional (light microscopy), molecular, or immunodetection tools. The relatively cheap microscopy techniques often lack sensitivity and are unable to identify a taeniid egg at the genus level. Nevertheless, several records ascribed a genus, or even species, to taeniid eggs that had been detected by light microscopy. Molecular and immunodetection tools offer better specificity, but still rely on the preceding egg recovery steps that also affect overall sensitivity. Finally, the majority of the methods lacked any attempt at performance evaluation and standardization, especially at the earlier stages of the analysis (e.g., sampling strategy, storage conditions, egg recovery), and viability was rarely addressed. As such, our review highlights the need for standardized, validated detection tools, that not only assess the extent of environmental contamination, but also the egg genus or species, and address viability.
PubMed: 35198745
DOI: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2022.e00145 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.
RESULTS
Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.
CONCLUSIONS
Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.
Topics: Hand Hygiene; Humans; Influenza, Human; Respiratory Tract Infections; Soaps; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 34408031
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046175 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2020Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For...
BACKGROUND
Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective.
OBJECTIVE
To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection.
DESIGN AND SETTING
A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
METHODS
A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment.
RESULTS
Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated.
CONCLUSION
Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.
Topics: Brazil; COVID-19; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Humans; Infection Control
PubMed: 33206913
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0417.09092020