-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Handwashing is important to reduce the spread and transmission of infectious disease. Ash, the residue from stoves and fires, is a material used for cleaning hands in...
BACKGROUND
Handwashing is important to reduce the spread and transmission of infectious disease. Ash, the residue from stoves and fires, is a material used for cleaning hands in settings where soap is not widely available.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of hand cleaning with ash compared with hand cleaning using soap or other materials for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections.
SEARCH METHODS
On 26 March 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all types of studies, in any population, that examined hand cleaning with ash compared to hand cleaning with any other material.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and full texts, and one review author extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias, which another review author double-checked. We used the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies, we used RoB 2.0 for three interventional studies, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We planned to synthesise data with random-effects meta-analyses. Our prespecified outcome measures were overall mortality, number of cases of infections (as defined in the individual studies), severity of infectious disease, harms (as reported in the individual studies), and adherence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies described in 19 records using eight different study designs, but only one randomised trial. The studies were primarily conducted in rural settings in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Six studies reported outcome data relevant to our review. A retrospective case-control study and a cohort study assessed diarrhoea in children under the age of five years and self-reported reproductive tract symptoms in women, respectively. It was very uncertain whether the rate of hospital contacts for moderate-to-severe diarrhoea in children differed between households that cleaned hands using ash compared with households cleaning hands using soap (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, it was very uncertain whether the rate of women experiencing symptoms of reproductive tract infection differed between women cleaning hands with ash compared with cleaning hands using soap (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) or when compared with handwashing with water only or not washing hands (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.96; very low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported on bacteriological counts after hand wash. We rated all four studies at high risk of bias, and we did not synthesise data due to methodological heterogeneity and unclear outcome reporting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, the benefits and harms of hand cleaning with ash compared with soap or other materials for reducing the spread of viral or bacterial infections are uncertain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bacterial Infections; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Case-Control Studies; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Cooking; Coronavirus Infections; Diarrhea; Feces; Female; Fires; Hand; Hand Hygiene; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Particulate Matter; Pneumonia, Viral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproductive Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Self Report; Soaps; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 32343408
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013597 -
PloS One 2023Parasitic contamination in vegetables is a reality in several countries and a challenge for food safety. The risk of consumption usually raw, associated with failures in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Parasitic contamination in vegetables is a reality in several countries and a challenge for food safety. The risk of consumption usually raw, associated with failures in good practices of production, transportation, and preparation further increase the possibility of ingesting contaminated food. Given this, a systematic review was carried out to scientifically demonstrate the effectiveness of sanitization protocols in the parasitic decontamination of plants.
METHODS
This review was conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Manual, being registered in the PROSPERO protocol base (CRD42020206929) and reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. The review evaluated studies published in the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, FSTA, LILACS, and AGRIS databases, as well as manual searches of related articles, references, and theses and dissertations directories. The meta-analysis was performed using the Revman 5 software program, the bias assessment used the Robins I Tools with some adaptations, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
DISCUSSION
The review included a total of 31 studies, most of which were carried out in countries with a high incidence of plant parasites, such as Brazil and Iran. Interventions combined with 200ppm chlorination preceded by brushing, rinsing, or immersion in detergent showed the greatest efficiency in parasitic decontamination. Despite the high heterogeneity and risk of bias in the primary studies, this review can inspire the planning of new studies which observe the critical and methodological evaluation for research in the field of food safety.
Topics: Animals; Acclimatization; Brazil; Databases, Factual; Parasites; Vegetables
PubMed: 37656694
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290447 -
International Journal of Epidemiology Aug 2019Limited data have been available on the global practice of handwashing with soap (HWWS). To better appreciate global HWWS frequency, which plays a role in disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Limited data have been available on the global practice of handwashing with soap (HWWS). To better appreciate global HWWS frequency, which plays a role in disease transmission, our objectives were to: (i) quantify the presence of designated handwashing facilities; (ii) assess the association between handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS; and (iii) derive country, regional and global HWWS estimates after potential faecal contact.
METHODS
First, using data from national surveys, we applied multilevel linear modelling to estimate national handwashing facility presence. Second, using multilevel Poisson modelling on datasets including both handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS after potential faecal contact, we estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on handwashing facility presence by region. For high-income countries, we used meta-analysis to pool handwashing prevalence of studies identified through a systematic review. Third, from the modelled handwashing facility presence and estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on the presence of a handwashing facility, we estimated handwashing practice at country, regional and global levels.
RESULTS
First, approximately one in four persons did not have a designated handwashing facility in 2015, based on 115 data points for 77 countries. Second the prevalence ratio between HWWS when a designated facility was present compared with when it was absent was 1.99 (1.66, 2.39) P <0.001 for low- and middle-income countries, based on nine datasets. Third, we estimate that in 2015, 26.2% (23.1%, 29.6%) of potential faecal contacts were followed by HWWS.
CONCLUSIONS
Many people lack a designated handwashing facility, but even among those with access, HWWS is poorly practised. People with access to designated handwashing facilities are about twice as likely to wash their hands with soap after potential faecal contact as people who lack a facility. Estimates are based on limited data.
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; Developing Countries; Feces; Global Health; Hand Disinfection; Health Behavior; Humans; Sanitation; Soaps
PubMed: 30535198
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy253 -
Alzheimer's & Dementia : the Journal of... Oct 2018Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer's disease, yet there is a lack of harmonized preanalytical CSF...
INTRODUCTION
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer's disease, yet there is a lack of harmonized preanalytical CSF handling protocols.
METHODS
This systematic review summarizes the current literature on the influence of preanalytical variables on CSF biomarker concentration. We evaluated the evidence for three core CSF biomarkers: β-amyloid 42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau.
RESULTS
The clinically important variables with the largest amount of conflicting data included the temperature at which samples are stored, the time nonfrozen samples can be stored, and possible effects of additives such as detergents, blood contamination, and centrifugation. Conversely, we discovered that there is consensus that tube material has a significant effect.
DISCUSSION
A unified CSF handling protocol is recommended to reduce preanalytical variability and facilitate comparison of CSF biomarkers across studies and laboratories. In future, experiments should use a gold standard with fresh CSF collected in low binding tubes.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Biomarkers; Humans; Specimen Handling
PubMed: 29940161
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.05.008 -
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics May 2020This study aimed to summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of QMix with other irrigants against .
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of QMix with other irrigants against .
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. The additional hand search was performed from the reference list of the eligible studies. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. QMix was found to have a higher antimicrobial activity compared to 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, and grape seed extract (GSE). QMix had higher antibacterial efficacy compared to NaOCl, only when used for a longer time (10 minutes) and with higher volume (above 3 mL).
CONCLUSIONS
QMix has higher antibacterial activity than 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, MTAD, 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, GSE and NaOCl with lower concentration. To improve the effectiveness, QMix is to use for a longer time and at a higher volume.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Identifier: CRD42018096763.
PubMed: 32483540
DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e23 -
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Aug 2020To evaluate the outcome of studies comparing the effectiveness of QMix irrigant in removing the smear layer in the root canal system compared with other irrigants.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the outcome of studies comparing the effectiveness of QMix irrigant in removing the smear layer in the root canal system compared with other irrigants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.
CONCLUSIONS
QMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.
PubMed: 32839709
DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e28