Pia Pace-Asciak1, Sanjiv K Bhimrao1, Frederick K Kozak1, Brian D Westerberg1. 1. Affiliations: Division of Otolaryngology (Pace-Asciak), Royal Inland Hospital, Kamloops, BC; Department of Otolaryngology (Bhimrao), University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, UK; Division of Otolaryngology (Kozak), BC Children's Hospital; BC Rotary Hearing and Balance Centre at St. Paul's Hospital (Westerberg), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that neckties worn by health care professionals may contribute to infections contracted in health care settings. We evaluated the evidence for health-care-associated infections resulting from neckties and whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a tieless policy in Canada. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to determine whether neckties worn by health care professionals colonize harmful pathogenic bacteria and whether they contribute to the spread of infection to patients in the inpatient or outpatient setting. We searched PubMed (1966 to 2017) and Embase (1974 to 2017). The level of evidence was appraised according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. We evaluated the quality of evidence and the risk of bias using the Jadad scale or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We screened 1675 citations, of which 6 were ultimately included in the systematic review. Only 1 study gave level 1b evidence (randomized controlled trial). Neckties were more likely than shirt pockets to colonize bacteria. There is limited evidence that neckties may be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and very limited evidence that contaminated neckties may transmit bacteria (in a controlled experimental setting to a mannequin). INTERPRETATION: There is no evidence of increased rates of health-care-associated infections related to the wearing of neckties by health care professionals. There is weak evidence that neckties are contaminated with pathogenic (and nonpathogenic) bacteria. The level of evidence was weak and the studies were heterogeneous. Evidence to support the need for a tieless dress code policy is lacking. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that neckties worn by health care professionals may contribute to infections contracted in health care settings. We evaluated the evidence for health-care-associated infections resulting from neckties and whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a tieless policy in Canada. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to determine whether neckties worn by health care professionals colonize harmful pathogenic bacteria and whether they contribute to the spread of infection to patients in the inpatient or outpatient setting. We searched PubMed (1966 to 2017) and Embase (1974 to 2017). The level of evidence was appraised according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. We evaluated the quality of evidence and the risk of bias using the Jadad scale or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We screened 1675 citations, of which 6 were ultimately included in the systematic review. Only 1 study gave level 1b evidence (randomized controlled trial). Neckties were more likely than shirt pockets to colonize bacteria. There is limited evidence that neckties may be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and very limited evidence that contaminated neckties may transmit bacteria (in a controlled experimental setting to a mannequin). INTERPRETATION: There is no evidence of increased rates of health-care-associated infections related to the wearing of neckties by health care professionals. There is weak evidence that neckties are contaminated with pathogenic (and nonpathogenic) bacteria. The level of evidence was weak and the studies were heterogeneous. Evidence to support the need for a tieless dress code policy is lacking. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: William E Trick; Michael O Vernon; Robert A Hayes; Catherine Nathan; Thomas W Rice; Brian J Peterson; John Segreti; Sharon F Welbel; Steven L Solomon; Robert A Weinstein Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2003-05-22 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: H P Loveday; J A Wilson; R J Pratt; M Golsorkhi; A Tingle; A Bak; J Browne; J Prieto; M Wilcox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Emilia Szumska; Przemyslaw Czajkowski; Michal Zablocki; Dorota Rozkiewicz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-18 Impact factor: 4.614