About the Author(s)


Joseph Okebe Email symbol
Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Atana Ewa symbol
Department of Pediatrics, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Ememobong Aquaisua symbol
Department of Health and Demographic Surveillance System, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

Obasesam A. Ikpi symbol
Department of Health and Demographic Surveillance System, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

Ella Olughu symbol
Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Ebere C. Chukwuemelie symbol
Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Chukwudi Oringanje symbol
Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Tochi Okwor symbol
Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Abuja, Nigeria

Martin Meremikwu symbol
Department of Pediatrics, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Citation


Okebe J, Ewa A, Aquaisua E, et al. Disinfection methods for preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings: A rapid review. J Public Health Africa. 2025;16(2), a588. https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.588

Note: The manuscript is a contribution to the themed collection titled ‘Systematic Reviews on Infection Prevention and Control in the Context of COVID-19’, under the expert guidance of guest editor Prof. Ehimario Igumbor.

Review Article

Disinfection methods for preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings: A rapid review

Joseph Okebe, Atana Ewa, Ememobong Aquaisua, Obasesam A. Ikpi, Ella Olughu, Ebere C. Chukwuemelie, Chukwudi Oringanje, Tochi Okwor, Martin Meremikwu

Received: 10 May 2024; Accepted: 30 Sept. 2024; Published: 25 Feb. 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Disinfectant sprays and wipes reduce the risk of infection from contaminated surfaces and materials in healthcare facilities. To support guideline updates, evidence on surface disinfection against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are needed.

Aim: This study aims to compare the effect of disinfection by spraying or wiping on the risk of human infections in healthcare facilities providing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) services.

Setting: Healthcare settings providing care for patients with COVID-19 or where exposure risk to COVID-19 is high.

Method: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of systematic review; PubMed, EMBASE and EPOC databases from 01 January 2020 to 31 August 2022. Results were screened for eligibility, the risk of bias in included studies assessed, and the certainty of evidence defined using GRADE®.

Results: Three observational studies were included. Two studies reporting proportion of surfaces with residual contamination, showed contrasting results with spraying more effective (0%, [n = 0/39] vs. 25.6% [n = 23/90]) in one study but less effective (25.0% [n = 12/48] vs. 48.2% [n = 13/27]) in the other. The third study reported higher reductions from wiping (88.0%) compared to spraying (15.1%). The risk of bias ranged from moderate to serious and the certainty of the evidence was very low. No study reported a direct effect on the risk of infection in humans.

Conclusion: Both spraying and wiping methods may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infections indirectly by reducing residual surface contamination.

Contribution: The use of both methods of disinfection in cleaning protocols indirectly reduces residual surface contamination.

Keywords: prevention; disinfection; SARS-CoV-2; healthcare; COVID-19.

Introduction

COVID-19 remains an important public health challenge globally with over 650 million cases and about 6.5 million deaths reported globally as on October 2022.1 Transmission is mainly airborne through droplets and aerosolised particles containing the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).2 The risk of transmission is associated with proximity to an infectious source hence may be higher in poorly ventilated, indoor spaces and with prolonged exposure.3,4 Although transmission is possible from contact with contaminated surfaces and materials, this has relatively lower risk but could be an important source in high-risk settings such as health facilities, schools and transport hubs.3,4,5 Reports of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in healthcare facilities suggest the potential for fomite transmission in healthcare settings.5,6,7

In healthcare settings there is a substantial risk of indirect infection from contaminated surfaces, equipment and shared spaces.6,8,9,10 Infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines address this risk through guidance on measures such as social distancing, disinfection, use of face covering and other personal protective equipment.11

Disinfection of surfaces, equipment and materials is an integral part of IPC protocols in healthcare settings.12,13 These protocols contain information on best practice on how to reduce the risk of infection to both staff and patients. They provide details on cleaning procedures, the type of disinfectant and methods for application on specific surfaces. Generally, disinfectants are applied either as direct spraying on surfaces or incorporated into wiping or scrubbing materials used in manual cleaning of surfaces and equipment. The goal is to optimise the microbicidal action of the agents by taking into account the type of surface, contact time, quantity of disinfectant applied and type of applicator used.14

Disinfectant products are labelled for use based on their treatment time (time needed to achieve a threshold microbicidal action) with regulators recommending a contact time of ≥ 1 min at the proper use dilution for disinfecting noncritical medical equipment and surfaces.15,16,17 The disinfectant action of sprays is directly related to its treatment time while the effect of wiping and brushing methods of applying disinfectants involves the additional effect from the process of manual removal action.

Many public health authorities have issued updated guidance on cleaning and disinfection protocols in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.18,19 With the increased usage of disinfectants, there have been questions about the relative importance of spraying and wiping methods in healthcare settings.20,21 This review assesses the available evidence on the effectiveness of spraying and wiping methods for disinfecting surfaces in healthcare settings providing care to patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

We included comparative studies conducted in healthcare facilities involving use of disinfectants by sprays or wiping action. Because of the rapidly evolving nature of the evidence on the pandemic, we prioritised studies for inclusion based on the study design and methodological rigour. In the first instance, we considered individual, or cluster randomised controlled trials and where these were not available, we included other types of studies provided they included at least one comparative arm involving the spraying method for disinfection. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Review; PubMed, EMBASE and EPOC (The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care) for the period 01 January 2020 – 31 August 2022. We restricted the search to studies conducted in healthcare settings or where samples were drawn from healthcare settings as this would provide direct evidence to the review question. We excluded simulation studies conducted in the research laboratories as well as studies on bacterial decontamination. We also checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied (Table 1).

TABLE 1: Search strategy and output.
TABLE 1 (Continues…): Search strategy and output.
TABLE 1 (Continues…): Search strategy and output.
Participants, interventions and outcomes

The primary outcome in the review was the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans (all definitions for infection in humans described by the study authors). Other outcomes were laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces and materials, residual surface contamination following disinfection and reported adverse effects from the decontamination method. We included studies that compared spraying with wiping methods for disinfection of surfaces, materials and equipment. Wiping methods included brushing, scrubbing tools, disinfectant-embedded materials such as wipes or towels on surfaces and materials. We excluded descriptive studies on surface contamination that did not involve an assessment of a cleaning intervention that included spraying and wiping.

Screening and data extraction

Two review authors independently applied our eligibility criteria to screen the titles and abstracts from the retrieved search output after de-duplication. Where multiple articles based on the same study were seen, they were distinguished by adding a suffix to the publication year. The full text of studies that met the initial criteria were retrieved for a more detailed eligibility screen by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies in selection of studies were resolved by discussion among the review team. No changes were made to the protocol in terms of eligibility and selection criteria. The result of the screening process is presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart showing article screening and inclusion in the review.

For each included study, we extracted background information on the location and context of the study and any demographic information if available (e.g., type of health facility, availability of cleaning protocol). We recorded information on the number of participants and surfaces included and analysed in each arm or group. We extracted data on the review outcomes and documented other outcomes reported by study authors but not related to the review. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as proportions and continuous outcomes reported as means or medians in each arm or group.

Risk of bias assessment in included studies

We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The tool assesses potential bias for key review outcomes across risk domains: confounding, selection of participants, classification of the intervention, deviations from intended intervention, missing data, measurement outcomes and selective reporting. Each domain is assigned a score with an overall risk score assigned for each study.22 The results are presented in a ‘Risk of bias’ assessment table.

Data analysis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

Data were extracted onto piloted forms designed using Microsoft Excel. Two authors independently extracted data with consistency checks done by a third author. Outcomes were pooled together where feasible. Because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies, a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore results are presented as a narrative summary. The certainty of evidence was assessed following the protocol for grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE®).23 This is a transparent framework for developing and presenting summaries of evidence and provides a systematic approach for supporting clinical practice recommendations.

Ethical considerations

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

Results

Results of the search

The search returned 2164 articles: 2139 from the database search and 25 records of studies from hand search of references from a review.24 After removing duplicate publications, we screened the titles and abstracts of 2140 records from which 10 articles were selected for full-text assessment. Of these 10, three studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. A full description of the studies is presented in tabular form (Table 2). The process of screening and selection is presented in a PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). The excluded studies and reasons for exclusion are listed in Table 3.

TABLE 2: Characteristics of included studies.
TABLE 3: Summary characteristics of excluded studies.
Description of studies: Design, population, interventions and outcomes

The three included studies were conducted in hospitals in South Korea,25 United States (US)26 and Mexico.27 The study setting ranged from specific surfaces in single to multi-occupancy rooms to materials and equipment in treatment and examination suites. The design and setting were very different between the studies. In the US study, all surfaces were disinfected by wiping and then compared for the relative effect of additional methods that included spraying.26 In the hospital in South Korea, the study was conducted across four hospitals using a range of intervention approaches; however, only two of the four hospitals implemented spraying and wiping and these groups were included in the review.25 In the hospital in US, samples were from multiple surfaces in the same location26 while in the other two studies, sampling was collected from multiple surfaces and locations in the same health facility. All studies report adherence to cleaning protocols but did not provide details of the protocols. Only the study in South Korea described the patients who occupied the rooms where the study was conducted. However, there was no information on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients or healthcare workers.

The effectiveness of the disinfection methods was reported as a change in viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) concentration measured in relative light units in one study27 and as the proportion of sampled surfaces with detectible RNA using a threshold Ct value of 35 or less after cleaning in the other two studies.25,26 Data were presented for the number of samples taken across the surfaces. The studies present crude results without any adjustments in effect measures and no information was provided to allow for additional analysis in the review. Therefore a meta-analysis was not feasible and results are presented as a narrative summary.

Risk of bias assessment

The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in two studies25,26 and serious in one study27 although risks varied between the studies across specific domains. A summary of the assessment is presented in Table 4. There were differences in the location and type of surfaces where samples were collected. All studies applied a cleaning protocol; however, the details of these protocols were not provided and hence alignment and consistency with protocols could not be assessed. Two studies reported using an additional cleaning protocol over what was routinely provided.26,27 It is probable that investigators who analysed the samples were aware of the source of the samples; however, no information was provided to determine if they were blinded to source of the samples. No statistical assessment for heterogeneity was possible in the review.

TABLE 4: Risk of bias in included studies assessed using the risk of bias in a non-randomised studies of interventions tool.
TABLE 4 (Continues…): Risk of bias in included studies assessed using the risk of bias in a non-randomised studies of interventions tool.
Effectiveness of surface decontamination

Studies reported on the effectiveness of surface decontamination, measured by residual contamination after cleaning, showed divergent results. In one study, spraying was more effective (0%, n = 0/39 vs. 25.6%, n = 23/90),25 while in the other study, it was less effective (25.0%, n = 12/48 vs. 48.2%, n = 13/27) compared to wiping methods26 (Figure 2). One study measured residual contamination as the concentration of viral RNA on surfaces shows an 88.0% reduction following wiping compared to a 15.1% reduction after disinfection by spraying (Table 5a, Table 5b, Table 5c).25,26,27

FIGURE 2: Summary of effect of spraying versus wiping method on residual surface contamination.

TABLE 5a: Description of type of disinfectants in included studies.
TABLE 5b: Description of type of disinfectants in included studies.
TABLE 5c: Description of type of disinfectants in included studies.

The certainty of the evidence was rated as very low for surface decontamination (Table 6).

TABLE 6: Certainty of evidence assessment (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations).

Discussion

Summary of main results

This review compared the evidence on the effect of disinfectant use by spraying or wiping on the reduction of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare settings providing care for patients with COVID-19. Three studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for assessment. Two studies assessed the proportion of detectable viral RNA on surfaces after disinfection showed divergent results with spraying being better in one study but less effective compared to wiping, in the other. The third study that compared the concentrations of residual viral RNA showed spraying may be less effective than wiping methods. The studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis because of substantial heterogeneity. No studies report on a direct risk to human infection from contaminated surface.

Contaminated surfaces are an important source for transmitting microorganisms and IPC protocols with a focus on cleaning and disinfection of surfaces, materials and equipment play a critical role in reducing the risk of infection from such surfaces.28 In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a surge in deaths and morbidity especially in healthcare settings which sparked urgent reviews to re-assess the risk of hospital-acquired infections especially from the SARS-CoV-2. In this review, eligible studies did not directly measure the risk of transmission from surfaces and materials to humans. They assessed evidence for residual contamination from both methods when applied based on standardised protocols. The authors mention adherence to cleaning protocols by healthcare staff but did not provide information on the content of these protocols or the way adherence was assessed.26 The studies applied a wide range of disinfectants, and the relative effect of the disinfectants would not be compared. In addition, different outcomes were used in determining residual contamination between the studies. These factors introduce substantial heterogeneity between the studies that precludes a meta-analysis for effect on transmission reduction. A systematic review of surface disinfection efficacy studies highlighted those variations in experimental conditions as an important determinant in outcomes.36

The effectiveness is likely to depend on additional factors such as proficiency of the personnel implementing protocols, disinfectant application mode, extent of contamination and surface type. The studies involved a combination of in-house and external cleaning staff. In practice, IPC protocols apply a combination of spraying and wiping methods and the diverse nature of the type of disinfectants and potentially cleaning protocols are likely to influence the overall effect of these methods.

It is useful to note that most of the studies did not confirm complete disinfection following the cleaning exercise. This provides evidence that current protocols may not be as efficient; however, the studies did not report any infection directly associated with residual contamination. This is a potential weakness of the studies. However, it is not clear if the residual viruses detected are viable and are a potential risk.

The included studies did not report on any actual or potential risks associated with the methods of disinfection.

Quality of the evidence

The three included studies were substantially different in the methods applied to the interventions that preclude a direct comparison or meta-analysis. Two studies26,27 involved complex cleaning protocols that involved a baseline disinfection by wiping. The overall score for the risk of bias in the included studies ranged from moderate25,26 to serious.27 There were serious concerns on the lack of sufficient information to judge the potential risk of confounding from co-interventions. The certainty of the evidence was rated as very low for the effect on surface decontamination.

Potential limitations in the review process

We have taken specific steps to limit potential bias in the review process. We applied procedures published by the Cochrane Methods Group37 and included the major libraries in the search strategy limited by year but not by publication status or language. The evidence reported reflects the scope of the guideline which is stated to be ‘in the context of COVID-19’ pandemic and is current till the date of the search. As evidence in this area continues to emerge, additional evidence may become available which would inform a revisit of this review’s findings. The potential risk of infection from other public areas such as schools or sports centres where contact and disinfection concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic is equally high are addressed in a separate review.

Conclusion

Disinfection of surfaces by spraying and wiping methods in healthcare settings providing care to patients with COVID-19 may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infections indirectly by reducing residual surface contamination. This review showed variable but important reduction in residual contamination following both methods. A direct effect on SARS-CoV-2 infections could not be demonstrated because of substantial heterogeneity in the design and implementation of the included studies. Both methods are typically combined in the context of wider IPC protocols hence challenging to determine the contribution of each method.

Implications for practice

Disinfection applied by spraying and wiping methods contribute to reducing the risk of transmission of pathogens on contaminated surfaces in regular use/contact in healthcare settings. A combination of cleaning methods and agents are likely to be beneficial in reducing the volume and proportion of infectious contaminants.

Implications for research

There is a lot of evidence on the subject that is based on laboratory and model-based simulation studies. While these are useful in estimating the risk of surface contamination, evidence of direct risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remain limited in clinical settings. The risk of transmission also depends on the cleaning practices and protocols as well as adherence by healthcare workers and patients in these settings. There remains a good case for disinfection by spraying or by wiping but the evidence on best practice needs to be carefully curated. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge of research in IPC. However, the volume of potential but ineligible studies suggests important disconnections between the research and public health needs and questions that needs to be addressed.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank colleagues at Infection Prevention and Control, Country Readiness Strengthening, World Health Organization, World Health Emergencies Programme, Geneva, Switzerland, for their support during the preparation of the review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Authors’ contributions

J.O. and M.M. developed the protocol. A.E., E.A., O.A.I., E.O., C.C., T.O., C.O. and J.O. screened search results for eligibility. J.O., E.A., T.O., and M.M. conducted the risk of bias assessment. J.O. wrote the draft versions of the review. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final article.

Funding information

The review was funded by a grant (grant number: IPC_COVID_LIT_06/2022) from Country Readiness Strengthening, WHO World Health Emergencies Programme, Geneva, Switzerland to Cochrane Nigeria (IPC_COVID_LIT_06/2022).

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no new data were created or analysed in this study. All articles used in this review are available in the public domain.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

  1. WHO. WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard [homepage on the Internet]. World Health Organization; 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 27]. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/
  2. Ge Y, Martinez L, Sun S, et al. COVID-19 transmission dynamics among close contacts of index patients with COVID-19: A population-based cohort study in Zhejiang Province, China. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1343–1350. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4686
  3. Abbas M, Cori A, Cordey S, et al. Reconstruction of transmission chains of SARS-CoV-2 amidst multiple outbreaks in a geriatric acute-care hospital: A combined retrospective epidemiological and genomic study. Elife. 2022;11:e76854. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76854
  4. Leducq V, Couturier J, Granger B, et al. Investigation of healthcare-associated COVID-19 in a large French hospital group by whole-genome sequencing. Microbiol Res. 2022;263:127133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2022.127133
  5. Rhee C, Baker MA, Klompas M. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory viral infections in healthcare settings: Current and emerging concepts. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2022;35(4):353–362. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000839
  6. Ong SWX, Tan YK, Chia PY, et al. Air, surface environmental, and personal protective equipment contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from a symptomatic patient. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1610–1612. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3227
  7. Santarpia JL, Rivera DN, Herrera VL, et al. Aerosol and surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 observed in quarantine and isolation care. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69286-3
  8. Bin SY, Heo JY, Song M-S, et al. Environmental contamination and viral shedding in MERS patients during MERS-CoV outbreak in South Korea. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(6):755–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ1020
  9. John A, Alhmidi H, Cadnum JL, Jencson AL, Donskey CJ. Contaminated portable equipment is a potential vector for dissemination of pathogens in the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(10):1247–1249. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.160
  10. Otter JA, Yezli S, Salkeld JAG, French GL. Evidence that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of hospital pathogens and an overview of strategies to address contaminated surfaces in hospital settings. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5 Suppl.):S6–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.12.004
  11. WHO. COVID-19 infection prevention and control: Living guideline [homepage on the Internet]. World Health Organization; 2022 [updated 2022 Apr 25; cited 2022 Aug 07]. Available from: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/6307/section/103219
  12. Dettenkofer M, Block C. Hospital disinfection: Efficacy and safety issues. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):320–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.qco.0000172701.75278.60
  13. Dettenkofer M, Wenzler S, Amthor S, Antes G, Motschall E, Daschner FD. Does disinfection of environmental surfaces influence nosocomial infection rates? A systematic review. Am J Infect Ctrl. 2004;32(2):84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2003.07.006
  14. Artasensi A, Mazzotta S, Fumagalli L. Back to basics: Choosing the appropriate surface disinfectant. Antibiotics. 2021;10(6):613. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10060613
  15. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Selection of the ideal disinfectant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(7):855–865. https://doi.org/10.1086/676877
  16. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Surface disinfection: Treatment time (wipes and sprays) versus contact time (liquids). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(3):329–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.288
  17. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Best practices for disinfection of noncritical environmental surfaces and equipment in health care facilities: A bundle approach. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:A96–A105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.01.014
  18. ECDC. Disinfection of environments in healthcare and nonhealthcare settings potentially contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; 2020.
  19. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Assessing the risk of disease transmission to patients when there is a failure to follow recommended disinfection and sterilization guidelines. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5 Suppl.):S67–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.031
  20. Kenters N, Huijskens EGW, De Wit SCJ, Van Rosmalen J, Voss A. Effectiveness of cleaning-disinfection wipes and sprays against multidrug-resistant outbreak strains. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):e69–e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.04.290
  21. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Efficacy of different cleaning and disinfection methods against clostridium difficile spores: Importance of physical removal versus sporicidal inactivation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(12):1255–1258. https://doi.org/10.1086/668434
  22. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
  23. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
  24. Bedrosian N, Mitchell E, Rohm E, et al. A systematic review of surface contamination, stability, and disinfection data on SARS-CoV-2 (through July 10, 2020). Environ Sci Technol. 2020;55(7):4162–4173. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05651
  25. Kim UJ, Lee SY, Lee JY, et al. Air and environmental contamination caused by COVID-19 patients: A multi-center study. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(37):e332. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e332
  26. Lesho E, Newhart D, Reno L, et al. Effectiveness of various cleaning strategies in acute and long-term care facilities during novel corona virus 2019 disease pandemic-related staff shortages. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261365. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261365
  27. Lugo IZ, Navarrete RC, Velazco GM, Ayala MU. Hospital environment cleaning and disinfection in times of covid-19. Guidelines and reflections. Enferm Infecc Microbiol. 2021;41(1):10–16.
  28. Boone SA, Gerba CP. Significance of fomites in the spread of respiratory and enteric viral disease. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(6):1687–1696. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02051-06
  29. Bailey ES, Curcic M, Biros J, Erdogmus H, Bac N, Sacco A, Jr. Essential oil disinfectant efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 microbial surrogates. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021;9:783832.
  30. Balter S, Rodriguez MA, Pike JA, Kleiman NJ. Microbial contamination risk and disinfection of radiation protective garments. Health Physics. 2021;120(2):123–130.
  31. Bigham M, Hislop M, Lapolla B, Bair T, Grinstead F, Khandelwal A. Utility of hydrogen peroxide disinfection in decreasing pathogens in a critical care environment. Critical Care Medicine. 2022;50(1 SUPPL):328.
  32. Campos RK, Mirchandani D, Rafael G, Saada N, McMahon R, Weaver SC. SARS-CoV-2 decontamination of skin with disinfectants active during and after application. The Journal of hospital infection. 2021;111:35–39.
  33. Chen AP-L, Chu IY-H, Yeh M-L, et al. Differentiating impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions on non-coronavirus disease-2019 respiratory viral infections: Hospital-based retrospective observational study in Taiwan. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 2021;15(4):478–487.
  34. Cheng VCC, Fung KSC, Siu GKH, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 by possible airborne transmission leading to a superspreading event. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021;73(6):E1356–E1364.
  35. Viana Martins CP, Xavier CSF, Cobrado L. Disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review. The Journal of Hospital Infection. 2022;119:84–117.
  36. Gallandat K, Kolus RC, Julian TR, Lantagne DS. A systematic review of chlorine-based surface disinfection efficacy to inform recommendations for low-resource outbreak settings. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(1):90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.05.014
  37. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.