Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 18;11(8):e046175. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046175.
To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.
We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.
Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.
Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.
比较使用醇基手部消毒剂与肥皂和水进行手部卫生对预防急性呼吸道感染(ARI)传播的效果,并评估手部卫生剂量与ARI、流感样疾病(ILI)或流感事件数量之间的关系。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、PubMed、Embase、护理学和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)和试验注册库于 2020 年 4 月进行检索。
我们纳入了比较基于社区的手部卫生干预(肥皂和水或消毒剂)与对照的随机对照试验,或比较消毒剂与肥皂和水的试验,并测量了ARI、ILI 或实验室确诊流感或相关后果的结果。
两名综述作者独立筛选标题和摘要以进行纳入,并提取数据。
纳入了 18 项试验。荟萃分析时,三项肥皂和水与对照相比的试验发现ARI 事件的发生率无显著增加(风险比(RR)1.23,95%CI 0.78 至 1.93);六项消毒剂与对照相比的试验发现ARI 事件的发生率显著降低(RR 0.80,95%CI 0.71 至 0.89)。当手部卫生剂量与ARI 相对风险作图时,未观察到明显的剂量反应关系。四项试验是消毒剂与肥皂和水的头对头比较,但差异太大无法合并:两项试验发现消毒剂组的减少明显大于肥皂组,而另外两项试验发现干预组之间无显著差异。
适当的手部卫生,无论是使用肥皂还是消毒剂,都可以降低ARI 病毒传播的风险;然而,直接和间接证据表明,消毒剂在实践中可能更有效。