Hilton Stephen P, An Nick H, O'Brien Lilly A, Snyder Jedidiah S, Rogers Hannah K, Cumming Oliver, Esteves Mills Joanna, Gordon Bruce, Freeman Matthew C, Caruso Bethany A, Wolfe Marlene K
Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Woodruff Health Sciences Center Library, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2025 Sep 16;10(Suppl 7):e018925. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2025-018925.
This systematic review collected and synthesised evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of commonly used hand hygiene materials and methods for removing or inactivating pathogens on hands in community settings. The evidence was generated to support the development of the WHO Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Community Settings.
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, PAIS Index, WHO IRIS, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary, and consulted experts in March 2023 for studies published between 1 January 1980 and 29 March 2023. Eligible studies included laboratory and field studies measuring reduction in organisms on hands after washing as intended in community settings; healthcare settings were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study; risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool and a laboratory-based quality assessment tool. Summary results in terms of log reduction in organisms on hands were calculated for categories with five or more data points from two or more studies.
Of 177 studies that met inclusion criteria, the majority focused on alcohol-based hand sanitiser (111, 63%) and handwashing with soap and water (110, 62%). Most evidence (119, 67%) assessed bacterial reductions and only 7 (4%) studies addressed enveloped viruses. Across studies, there was a >2 log reduction in bacteria after handwashing with soap and water (2.19 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.87)) or alcohol-based sanitisers (3.13 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.56)), and for viruses after handwashing with soap and water (2.03 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.62)). However, there was a <2 log reduction for viruses with alcohol-based sanitisers (1.86 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.35)).
The ability to compare efficacy across materials and methods was limited due to the focus on bacteria and soap and water and alcohol-based sanitisers. Additional evidence quantifying the impact of handwashing on viruses (especially enveloped viruses), handwashing alternatives other than alcohol-based sanitisers, drying methods and microbial water quality, as well as the effectiveness of many of these products in the field would support more evidence-based recommendations.
CRD42023429145.
本系统评价收集并综合了关于社区环境中常用手部卫生材料和方法去除或灭活手部病原体的有效性和效果的证据。这些证据用于支持世界卫生组织《社区环境手部卫生指南》的制定。
我们检索了PubMed、科学网、EMBASE、护理学与健康领域数据库、全球卫生数据库、Cochrane图书馆、全球医学索引、Scopus、公共事务信息服务数据库索引、世界卫生组织信息资源信息系统、联合国数字图书馆和世界银行电子图书馆,并于2023年3月咨询专家,以获取1980年1月1日至2023年3月29日发表的研究。符合条件的研究包括测量社区环境中按预期洗手后手部微生物减少情况的实验室和现场研究;排除医疗保健环境中的研究。两名评审员独立从每项研究中提取数据;使用混合方法评估工具和基于实验室的质量评估工具评估偏倚风险。对于来自两项或更多研究且有五个或更多数据点的类别,计算手部微生物对数减少方面的汇总结果。
在177项符合纳入标准的研究中,大多数聚焦于酒精类洗手液(111项,63%)和用肥皂和水洗手(110项,62%)。大多数证据(119项,67%)评估了细菌减少情况,仅有7项(4%)研究涉及包膜病毒。在各项研究中,用肥皂和水洗手后细菌减少超过2个对数(2.19(95%置信区间1.5至2.87)),酒精类洗手液洗手后细菌减少情况相同(3.13(95%置信区间2.7至3.56)),用肥皂和水洗手后病毒减少情况为2.03(95%置信区间1.45至2.62)。然而,酒精类洗手液对病毒的减少未超过2个对数(1.86(95%置信区间1.37至2.35))。
由于研究主要聚焦于细菌以及肥皂和水与酒精类洗手液,跨材料和方法比较有效性的能力有限。更多量化洗手对病毒(尤其是包膜病毒)影响、酒精类洗手液以外的洗手替代方法、干燥方法和微生物水质的证据,以及这些产品在现场的有效性,将支持更具循证性的建议。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42023429145。