Hand Hygiene with Soap and Water Is Superior to Alcohol Rub and Antiseptic Wipes for Removal of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate common hand hygiene methods for efficacy in removing Clostridium difficile. DESIGN: Randomized crossover comparison among 10 volunteers with hands experimentally contaminated by nontoxigenic C. difficile. METHODS: Interventions included warm water with plain soap, cold water with plain soap, warm water with antibacterial soap, antiseptic hand wipes, alcohol-based handrub, and a control involving no intervention. All interventions were evaluated for mean reduction in colony-forming units (CFUs) under 2 contamination protocols: "whole hand" and "palmar surface." Results were analyzed according to a Bayesian approach, by using hierarchical models adjusted for multiple observations. RESULTS: Under the whole-hand protocol, the greatest adjusted mean reductions were achieved by warm water with plain soap (2.14 log(10) CFU/mL [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.74-2.54 log(10) CFU/mL]), cold water with plain soap (1.88 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.48-2.28 log(10) CFU/mL), and warm water with antibacterial soap (1.51 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 1.12-1.91 log(10) CFU/mL]), followed by antiseptic hand wipes (0.57 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, 0.17-0.96 log(10) CFU/mL]). Alcohol-based handrub (0.06 log(10) CFU/mL [95% CrI, -0.34 to 0.45 log(10) CFU/mL]) was equivalent to no intervention. Under the palmar surface protocol, warm water with plain soap, cold water with plain soap, and warm water with antibacterial soap again yielded the greatest mean reductions, followed by antiseptic hand wipes (26.6, 26.6, 26.6, and 21.9 CFUs per plate, respectively), when compared with alcohol-based handrub. Hypothenar (odds ratio, 10.98 [95% CrI, 1.96-37.65]) and thenar (odds ratio, 6.99 [95% CrI, 1.25-23.41]) surfaces were more likely than fingertips to remain heavily contaminated after handwashing. CONCLUSIONS: Handwashing with soap and water showed the greatest efficacy in removing C. difficile and should be performed preferentially over the use of alcohol-based handrubs when contact with C. difficile is suspected or likely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".