Soap and water cleaning versus bleach-based cleaners for eliminating SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IF 0.6 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Public Health in Africa Pub Date : 2025-01-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jphia.v16i2.612
Ekong E Udoh, Ubong A Udoh, Abiodun Egwuenu, Ekpereonne B Esu, Aruk Eteng, Faithman E Ovat, Uduak Okomo, Olabisi Oduwole, Joseph Okebe, Martin Meremikwu
{"title":"Soap and water cleaning versus bleach-based cleaners for eliminating SARS-CoV-2 infection.","authors":"Ekong E Udoh, Ubong A Udoh, Abiodun Egwuenu, Ekpereonne B Esu, Aruk Eteng, Faithman E Ovat, Uduak Okomo, Olabisi Oduwole, Joseph Okebe, Martin Meremikwu","doi":"10.4102/jphia.v16i2.612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Households and community settings are important hubs for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As understanding of viral transmission improves, infection prevention and control (IPC) policies need to be updated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of soap and water alone to bleach-based cleaners in eliminating SARS-CoV-2 infection in households and community settings.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>We conducted a virtual search through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane database of systematic reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed studies which compared the effect of soap and water cleaning on SARS-CoV-2 among humans to that of bleach-based cleaning, both in households and communities. We prioritised systematic reviews and randomised studies and only included other study designs, such as laboratory studies, which had interventions of relevant interest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrieved 1192 articles from the search. We summarised evidence from three laboratory studies as there were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative effectiveness studies that met our inclusion criteria. Indirect evidence suggests that soap and bleach-based cleaners were effective at different concentrations. Substantial heterogeneity between the cited studies precludes any inference on effectiveness in reducing risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Both interventions remain important components of IPC measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no evidence for comparison of soap and water versus bleach-based cleaners against SARS-CoV-2 in humans in household and community settings. Indirect evidence shows both interventions to be effective against the virus.</p><p><strong>Contributions: </strong>Primary studies addressing this critical question are required to guide public health recommendations and policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":44723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","volume":"16 2","pages":"612"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12138657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Households and community settings are important hubs for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As understanding of viral transmission improves, infection prevention and control (IPC) policies need to be updated.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of soap and water alone to bleach-based cleaners in eliminating SARS-CoV-2 infection in households and community settings.

Setting: We conducted a virtual search through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane database of systematic reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC).

Methods: We assessed studies which compared the effect of soap and water cleaning on SARS-CoV-2 among humans to that of bleach-based cleaning, both in households and communities. We prioritised systematic reviews and randomised studies and only included other study designs, such as laboratory studies, which had interventions of relevant interest.

Results: We retrieved 1192 articles from the search. We summarised evidence from three laboratory studies as there were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative effectiveness studies that met our inclusion criteria. Indirect evidence suggests that soap and bleach-based cleaners were effective at different concentrations. Substantial heterogeneity between the cited studies precludes any inference on effectiveness in reducing risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Both interventions remain important components of IPC measures.

Conclusion: There was no evidence for comparison of soap and water versus bleach-based cleaners against SARS-CoV-2 in humans in household and community settings. Indirect evidence shows both interventions to be effective against the virus.

Contributions: Primary studies addressing this critical question are required to guide public health recommendations and policies.

肥皂和水清洁与基于漂白剂的清洁剂消除SARS-CoV-2感染。
背景:家庭和社区环境是严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2)传播的重要枢纽。随着对病毒传播认识的提高,感染预防和控制(IPC)政策需要更新。目的:比较肥皂和水与漂白清洁剂在家庭和社区环境中消除SARS-CoV-2感染的效果。背景:我们通过Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central)、Cochrane系统评价数据库、PubMed、EMBASE和有效实践与护理组织(EPOC)进行了虚拟检索。方法:我们评估了比较肥皂和水清洁对家庭和社区中人类SARS-CoV-2的影响与漂白剂清洁的研究。我们优先考虑系统评价和随机研究,并只纳入其他研究设计,如实验室研究,这些研究设计具有相关的干预措施。结果:我们从检索中检索到1192篇文章。我们总结了三项实验室研究的证据,因为没有随机对照试验(rct)或比较有效性研究符合我们的纳入标准。间接证据表明,肥皂和含漂白剂的清洁剂在不同浓度下都有效。引用的研究之间的实质性异质性排除了对降低人类感染SARS-CoV-2风险的有效性的任何推断。这两项干预措施仍然是IPC措施的重要组成部分。结论:没有证据表明肥皂和水与漂白剂清洁剂在家庭和社区环境中对人类的SARS-CoV-2进行了比较。间接证据表明,这两种干预措施对该病毒都有效。贡献:需要针对这一关键问题进行初步研究,以指导公共卫生建议和政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health in Africa
Journal of Public Health in Africa PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health in Africa (JPHiA) is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that focuses on health issues in the African continent. The journal editors seek high quality original articles on public health related issues, reviews, comments and more. The aim of the journal is to move public health discourse from the background to the forefront. The success of Africa’s struggle against disease depends on public health approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信