-
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology... Nov 2017Research indicates a correlative relationship between asthma and use of consumer cleaning products. We conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature on... (Review)
Review
Research indicates a correlative relationship between asthma and use of consumer cleaning products. We conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature on persons who use or are exposed to cleaning products, both in occupational and domestic settings, and risk of asthma or asthma-like symptoms to improve understanding of the causal relationship between exposure and asthma. A scoring method for assessing study reliability is presented. Although research indicates an association between asthma and the use of cleaning products, no study robustly investigates exposure to cleaning products or ingredients along with asthma risk. This limits determination of causal relationships between asthma and specific products or ingredients in chemical safety assessment. These limitations, and a lack of robust animal models for toxicological assessment of asthma, create the need for a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach to examine an ingredient or product's asthmatic potential. This proposed WoE method organizes diverse lines of data (i.e., asthma, sensitization, and irritation information) through a systematic, hierarchical framework that provides qualitatively categorized conclusions using hazard bands to predict a specific product or ingredient's potential for asthma induction. This work provides a method for prioritizing chemicals as a first step for quantitative and scenario-specific safety assessments based on their potential for inducing asthmatic effects. Acetic acid is used as a case study to test this framework.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Animals; Asthma; Consumer Product Safety; Detergents; Humans; Irritants; Models, Animal; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 28918194
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.013 -
BMC Geriatrics Jan 2017For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are increasingly used in health care. Washing without water is one such alternative that has been claimed to offer several advantages, such as improved hygiene and skin condition. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence on outcomes of the washing without water concept compared to the traditional bed bath.
METHODS
Controlled trials about washing without water outcomes published after 1994 were collected by means of a systematic literature search in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PUBMED at the 25th of February, 2016. Additionally, references and citations were searched and experts contacted. Studies were eligible if (1) the study designs included outcomes of washing without water products developed for the full body wash compared to the traditional bed bath, and (2) they were controlled trials. Two researchers independently used a standardized quality checklist to assess the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Finally, outcomes were categorized in (1) physiological outcomes related to hygiene and skin condition, (2) stakeholder-related outcomes, and (3) organizational outcomes in the data synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 33 potentially relevant articles subjected to full text screening, six studies met the eligibility criteria. Only two studies (of the same research group) were considered of high quality. The results of these high quality studies show that washing without water performed better than the traditional bed bath regarding skin abnormalities and bathing completeness. No differences between washing without water and the traditional bed bath were found for outcomes related to significant skin lesions, resistance during bathing and costs in the studies of high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited moderate to high quality evidence that washing without water is not inferior to the traditional bed bath. Future research on washing without water is needed and should pay special attention to costs, hygiene, and to stakeholder-related outcomes, such as experiences and value perceptions of patients, nursing staff and family.
Topics: Baths; Disabled Persons; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soaps; Water
PubMed: 28118815
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0425-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and procedures are the same for both prevention and treatment of IAD.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various products and procedures to preventand treat incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 September 2016). Additionally we searched other electronic databases: CENTRAL(2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to May Week 3 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (inception to 26 May 2015), CINAHL(December 1981 to 28 May 2015), Web of Science (WoS; inception to 28 May 2015) and handsearched conference proceedings (to June 2015) and the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, performed in any healthcare setting, with included participants over 18 years of age, with or without IAD. We included trials comparing the (cost) effectiveness of topical skin care products such as skin cleansers, moisturisers, and skin protectants of different compositions and skin care procedures aiming to prevent and treat IAD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials with 1295 participants in a qualitative synthesis. Participants were incontinent for urine, stool, or both, and were residents in a nursing home or were hospitalised.Eleven trials had a small sample size and short follow-up periods. .The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in participant population, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools.Nine trials compared different topical skin care products, including a combination of products. Two trials tested a structured skin care procedure. One trial compared topical skin care products alongside frequencies of application. One trial compared frequencies of application of topical skin care products.We found evidence in two trials, being of low and moderate quality, that soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD (primary outcomes of this review). The first trial indicated that the use of a skin cleanser might be more effective than the use of soap and water (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.87; low quality evidence). The second trial indicated that a structured skin care procedure, being a washcloth with cleansing, moisturising, and protecting properties, might be more effective than soap and water (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.79; moderate quality evidence). Findings from the other trials, all being of low to very low quality, suggest that applying a leave-on product (moisturiser, skin protectant, or a combination) might be more effective than not applying a leave-on product. No trial reported on the third primary outcome 'number of participants not satisfied with treatment' or on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little evidence, of very low to moderate quality, exists on the effects of interventions for preventing and treating IAD in adults. Soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD. Application of leave-on products (moisturisers, skin protectants, or a combination) and avoiding soap seems to be more effective than withholding these products. The performance of leave-on products depends on the combination of ingredients, the overall formulation and the usage (e.g. amount applied). High quality confirmatory trials using standardised, and comparable prevention and treatment regimens in different settings/regions are required. Furthermore, to increase the comparability of trial results, we recommend the development of a core outcome set, including validated measurement tools. The evidence in this review is current up to 28 September 2016.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Amitriptyline; Dermatitis; Dermatologic Agents; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Petrolatum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Soaps; Urinary Incontinence; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 27841440
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub2 -
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 -
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del... Jul 2016Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed in order to develop a consensus document on the use of SD-plasma. Moreover, a pharmacoeconomic study was performed in order to assess whether the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP. A multidisciplinary panel used the systematic review and the GRADE methodology to develop evidence-based recommendations on this topic.
RESULTS
Based on moderate to very low quality evidence, the panel developed the following consensus statements: (i) the panel suggested that SD-plasma is safer than FFP; (ii) the panel could not express for or against a greater efficacy of SD-plasma as compared to FFP; (iii) the panel suggested that in patients undergoing liver transplantation SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP; (iv) the panel suggested that SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP in patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura undergoing plasma-exchange procedures; (v) the panel could not recommend for or against preferring SD-plasma over FFP in critical care patients; and (vi) the panel suggested that the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP.
DISCUSSION
Data from additional randomised studies are needed to establish more definitive guidelines on the use of SD-plasma.
PubMed: 27136429
DOI: 10.2450/2016.0168-15 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child Day Care Centers; Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Diarrhea; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schools; Soaps
PubMed: 26346329
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aprotinin; Athletes; Fibroblasts; Glycosaminoglycans; Hemodialysis Solutions; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Middle Aged; Platelet Transfusion; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tendinopathy; Young Adult
PubMed: 26009861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010960.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Baths; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Female; Humans; Male; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soaps; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25927093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004985.pub5 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Aug 2014To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of the literature.
METHODS
Studies with data on observed rates of handwashing with soap published between 1990 and August 2013 were identified from a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and ISI Web of Knowledge. A separate search was conducted for studies on the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal disease that included randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials with control group, observational studies using matching techniques and observational studies with a control group where the intervention was well defined. The search used Cochrane Library, Global Health, BIOSIS, PubMed, and Embase databases supplemented with reference lists from previously published systematic reviews to identify studies published between 1970 and August 2013. Results were combined using multilevel modelling for handwashing prevalence and meta-regression for risk estimates.
RESULTS
From the 42 studies reporting handwashing prevalence we estimate that approximately 19% of the world population washes hands with soap after contact with excreta (i.e. use of a sanitation facility or contact with children's excreta). Meta-regression of risk estimates suggests that handwashing reduces the risk of diarrhoeal disease by 40% (risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.68); however, when we included an adjustment for unblinded studies, the effect estimate was reduced to 23% (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.86).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that handwashing after contact with excreta is poorly practiced globally, despite the likely positive health benefits.
Topics: Diarrhea; Environmental Exposure; Global Health; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soaps
PubMed: 24889816
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12339