Hygiene Practices Against Dermatophytic Fungi: A Review of Strategies to Combat Antifungal Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superficial fungal infections of the feet, such as tinea pedis and onychomycosis, are highly prevalent and frequently recurrent, often due to persistent contamination of footwear, textiles, and foot care instruments. Despite growing concern over antifungal resistance, environmental sources of reinfection remain under-recognized in clinical practice. This review critically examines historical and contemporary methods used to sanitize shoes, socks, podiatric tools, and related materials. Evidence from peer-reviewed studies published between 1938 and 2025 was analyzed across multiple disinfection categories, including chemical agents, thermal methods, laundering, ultraviolet- and ozone-based technologies, antimicrobial textiles, and sterilization protocols. Findings reveal a range of efficacies, limitations, and practical considerations across methods, with steam sterilization emerging as the most reliable for reusable instruments. A multifaceted approach combining pharmacologic treatment with consistent environmental hygiene is essential for breaking reinfection cycles and reducing antifungal resistance. This review highlights the need for clinical education and research into scalable, effective disinfection strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".