↓ Skip to main content

Influence of rub-in technique on required application time and hand coverage in hygienic hand disinfection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 7,633)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of rub-in technique on required application time and hand coverage in hygienic hand disinfection
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-8-149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Günter Kampf, Mirja Reichel, Yvonne Feil, Sven Eggerstedt, Paul-Michael Kaulfers

Abstract

Recent data indicate that full efficacy of a hand rub preparation for hygienic hand disinfection can be achieved within 15 seconds (s). However, the efficacy test used for the European Norm (EN) 1500 samples only the fingertips. Therefore, we investigated hand coverage using sixteen different application variations. The hand rub was supplemented with a fluorescent dye, and hands were assessed under UV light by a blind test, before and after application. Fifteen non-healthcare workers were used as subjects for each application variation apart from one test which was done with a group of twenty healthcare workers. All tests apart from the reference procedure were performed using 3 mL of hand rub. The EN 1500 reference procedure, which consists of 6 specific rub-in steps performed twice with an aliquot of 3 ml each time, served as a control. In one part of this study, each of the six steps was performed from one to five times before proceeding to the next step. In another part of the study, the entire sequence of six steps was performed from one to five times. Finally, all subjects were instructed to cover both hands completely, irrespective of any specific steps ("responsible application"). Each rub-in technique was evaluated for untreated skin areas. The reference procedure lasted on average 75 s and resulted in 53% of subjects with at least one untreated area on the hands. Five repetitions of the rub-in steps lasted on average 37 s with 67% of subjects having incompletely treated hands. One repetition lasted on average 17 s, and all subjects had at least one untreated area. Repeating the sequence of steps lasted longer, but did not yield a better result. "Responsible application" was quite fast, lasting 25 s among non-healthcare worker subjects and 28 s among healthcare workers. It was also effective, with 53% and 55% of hands being incompletely treated. New techniques were as fast and effective as "responsible application". Large untreated areas were found only with short applications. Fingertips and palms were often covered completely. In clinical practice, hand disinfection is apparently better than practitioners of infection control often anticipate. Based on our data, a high-quality hygienic hand disinfection is not possible within 15 s. A 30 s application time can, however, be recommended for clinical practice. The currently recommended six steps of EN 1500 are not really suitable for clinical practice, because they yield comparably poor results. The most appropriate application procedure may be "responsible application", or one of the other new techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 321. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#85,103
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#29
of 7,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139
of 91,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.