Literature DB >> 3950394

Evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection: controlled parallel experiments on the Vienna test model.

M L Rotter, W Koller, G Wewalka, H P Werner, G A Ayliffe, J R Babb.   

Abstract

Controlled parallel experiments were performed on the Vienna test model for the evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection in three laboratories (Vienna, Mainz, Birmingham). The degerming activity of four procedures, each taking 1 min, was assessed repeatedly and compared with that of a standard disinfection procedure (ST) using isopropanol 60% (v/v). The mean log reductions (mean log RF) for each procedure were as follows: n-propanol 50% (v/v) 4.85 and 5.14 in Vienna (V) and Mainz (M) respectively, ethanol 70% (v/v) + chlorhexidine-gluconate 0.5% (w/v), 4.01 (V), 3.76 (M) and 4.00 in Birmingham (B). Washing procedures were less effective, mean log RF's of 3.19 (V), 3.49 (M) and 3.04 (B) were obtained with povidone-iodine soap, and 2.91 (V), 3.37 (M) and 3.27 (B) with a liquid phenolic soap. Analysis of variance on the data from Vienna and Mainz revealed significant differences of means not only between procedures ('preparations') but also on repeat testing. To compensate for the influence of variables such as test subjects, laboratory and day, the Vienna test model provides a method of standardization by testing a ST in parallel with the test procedure (P). Standardization of the results was obtained by pair-wise substraction, log RFPi-log RFSTi. Analysis of variance on the resulting values demonstrated that comparability of the results between laboratories and on repeat testing was achieved. The relative variation of the measurements within the laboratories ranged from 0.9 to 4.2%. As assessed by power-analysis, a disinfection procedure will be detected as significantly (P = 0.1) inferior to the standard processes in 95 of 100 experiments if it produces a mean log RF that is at least 0.55-0.65 log units smaller than that of the standard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3950394      PMCID: PMC2129593          DOI: 10.1017/s0022172400062501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hyg (Lond)        ISSN: 0022-1724


  4 in total

1.  A test for 'hygienic' hand disinfection.

Authors:  G A Ayliffe; J R Babb; A H Quoraishi
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  [Thoughts upon the construction of requirements of disinfection procedures concerning contaminated hands - an analysis (author's transl)].

Authors:  M Kundi; W Koller; H Mittermayer; M Rotter
Journal:  Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B       Date:  1975-10

3.  [Investigations on the model of the artificially contaminated hand; proposal of a test method].

Authors:  M Rotter; H Mittermayer
Journal:  Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B       Date:  1974-12

4.  [Usability of three alcohols for a standard disinfection method to be employed for the evaluation of procedures for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author's transl)].

Authors:  M Rotter; W Koller; M Kundi
Journal:  Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B       Date:  1977-08
  4 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.

Authors:  Günter Kampf; Axel Kramer
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Bactericidal and Virucidal Activity of Povidone-Iodine and Chlorhexidine Gluconate Cleansers in an In Vivo Hand Hygiene Clinical Simulation Study.

Authors:  Maren Eggers; Torsten Koburger-Janssen; Lois S Ward; Craig Newby; Stefan Müller
Journal:  Infect Dis Ther       Date:  2018-05-14

Review 3.  Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection.

Authors:  Judith Tanner; Jo C Dumville; Gill Norman; Mathew Fortnam
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-22
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.