222nm UVC与254nm UVC的消毒效果和安全性比较:系统评价和meta分析。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Q. Liu , X. Wang , L. Jiang, Y. Fan, F. Gao, Y. Wu, L. Xiong
{"title":"222nm UVC与254nm UVC的消毒效果和安全性比较:系统评价和meta分析。","authors":"Q. Liu ,&nbsp;X. Wang ,&nbsp;L. Jiang,&nbsp;Y. Fan,&nbsp;F. Gao,&nbsp;Y. Wu,&nbsp;L. Xiong","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Some studies have indicated that disinfection with 222-nm ultraviolet C (UVC) is more effective than that with 254-nm UVC; however, other studies have reported the opposite. Moreover, additional studies have reported that 222-nm UVC exposure is safe for the skin and eyes. This study aimed to identify and quantitatively synthesize all studies evaluating the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through November 2024 for studies that evaluated the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We identified 25 eligible publications including 15 publications providing data only on the efficacy, seven only on the safety, and the remaining three on both efficacy and safety. The pooled odds ratio for studies comparing the efficacy of 222-nm UVC with that of 254-nm UVC was 1.382 (95% CI: 1.153–1.656, <em>N</em> = 18 publications with 87 studies), indicating that 222-nm UVC is more effective for disinfection. The pooled risk difference for studies evaluating the safety of 222-nm UVC radiation was -0.211 (95% CI: -0.245, -0.177; <em>N</em> = 10 publications with 29 studies), which indicates that the proportion of normal cells producing cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers via 222-nm UVC is 21.1% less than that via 254-nm. Compared with 254-nm UVC, 222-nm UVC not only exhibits comparable or potentially superior efficacy in disinfecting diverse micro-organisms but also causes less DNA damage to the mammalian cells.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":"161 ","pages":"Pages 55-67"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm ultraviolet C compared with 254-nm ultraviolet C: systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Q. Liu ,&nbsp;X. Wang ,&nbsp;L. Jiang,&nbsp;Y. Fan,&nbsp;F. Gao,&nbsp;Y. Wu,&nbsp;L. Xiong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Some studies have indicated that disinfection with 222-nm ultraviolet C (UVC) is more effective than that with 254-nm UVC; however, other studies have reported the opposite. Moreover, additional studies have reported that 222-nm UVC exposure is safe for the skin and eyes. This study aimed to identify and quantitatively synthesize all studies evaluating the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through November 2024 for studies that evaluated the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We identified 25 eligible publications including 15 publications providing data only on the efficacy, seven only on the safety, and the remaining three on both efficacy and safety. The pooled odds ratio for studies comparing the efficacy of 222-nm UVC with that of 254-nm UVC was 1.382 (95% CI: 1.153–1.656, <em>N</em> = 18 publications with 87 studies), indicating that 222-nm UVC is more effective for disinfection. The pooled risk difference for studies evaluating the safety of 222-nm UVC radiation was -0.211 (95% CI: -0.245, -0.177; <em>N</em> = 10 publications with 29 studies), which indicates that the proportion of normal cells producing cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers via 222-nm UVC is 21.1% less than that via 254-nm. Compared with 254-nm UVC, 222-nm UVC not only exhibits comparable or potentially superior efficacy in disinfecting diverse micro-organisms but also causes less DNA damage to the mammalian cells.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"volume\":\"161 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 55-67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670125000921\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670125000921","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一些研究表明,222 nm的紫外线C (UVC)比254 nm的紫外线C (UVC)更有效。然而,其他研究报告了相反的结果。此外,其他研究报告称,222纳米的紫外线暴露对皮肤和眼睛是安全的。本研究旨在对222nm UVC与254nm UVC的消毒效果和安全性评价进行鉴定和定量综合。方法:我们进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。我们检索了Web of Science、SCOPUS、Medline、Ovid Embase和Cochrane Library,检索了截至2024年11月222纳米UVC与254纳米UVC的消毒效果和安全性评估研究。结果:我们确定了25篇符合条件的出版物,其中15篇仅提供疗效数据,7篇仅提供安全性数据,其余3篇同时提供疗效和安全性数据。比较222纳米UVC与254纳米UVC效果的研究的合并优势比为1.382 (95% CI: 1.153-1.656, n=18篇论文,共87项研究),表明222纳米UVC的消毒效果更有效。评估222 nm UVC辐射安全性的研究的总风险差为-0.211 (95% CI: -0.245,-0.177;n=10出版物,29项研究),这表明通过222 nm UVC产生环丁烷嘧啶二聚体的正常细胞比例比通过254 nm UVC产生环丁烷嘧啶二聚体的正常细胞比例低21.1%。结论:与254 nm UVC相比,222 nm UVC不仅对多种微生物的消毒效果相当或可能更好,而且对哺乳动物细胞的DNA损伤更小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm ultraviolet C compared with 254-nm ultraviolet C: systematic review and meta-analysis
Some studies have indicated that disinfection with 222-nm ultraviolet C (UVC) is more effective than that with 254-nm UVC; however, other studies have reported the opposite. Moreover, additional studies have reported that 222-nm UVC exposure is safe for the skin and eyes. This study aimed to identify and quantitatively synthesize all studies evaluating the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through November 2024 for studies that evaluated the disinfection efficacy and safety of 222-nm UVC compared with 254-nm UVC. We identified 25 eligible publications including 15 publications providing data only on the efficacy, seven only on the safety, and the remaining three on both efficacy and safety. The pooled odds ratio for studies comparing the efficacy of 222-nm UVC with that of 254-nm UVC was 1.382 (95% CI: 1.153–1.656, N = 18 publications with 87 studies), indicating that 222-nm UVC is more effective for disinfection. The pooled risk difference for studies evaluating the safety of 222-nm UVC radiation was -0.211 (95% CI: -0.245, -0.177; N = 10 publications with 29 studies), which indicates that the proportion of normal cells producing cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers via 222-nm UVC is 21.1% less than that via 254-nm. Compared with 254-nm UVC, 222-nm UVC not only exhibits comparable or potentially superior efficacy in disinfecting diverse micro-organisms but also causes less DNA damage to the mammalian cells.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hospital Infection
Journal of Hospital Infection 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
271
审稿时长
19 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience. The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that: provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings; provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination; provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises; describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection; throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship; describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control; improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change; improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信