Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:14:57.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handwashing: Are Experimental Models a Substitute for Clinical Trials? Two Viewpoints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Elaine Larson  and
M.L. Rotter
Elaine Larson*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Clinical Microbiology, Hygiene-Institute of the University, Wenna, Austria
M.L. Rotter
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Hygiene-Institute of the University, Wenna, Austria
*
Nutting Chair in Nursing, The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , February 1990 , pp. 63 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

Footnotes

*

No author collaboration was requested. Each author's comments are presented separately, as indicated at the beginning of each section.

References

1. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Revised ed. New York: Academic Press; 1977:179–213.10.1016/B978-0-12-179060-8.50011-6Google Scholar
2. Wolinsky, E, Lipsitz, PJ Jr Mortimer, EA, Rammelkamp, CH. Acquisition of staphylococci by newborns. Direct versus indirect transmission. Lancet. 1960;2:620–622.10.1016/S0140-6736(60)91693-7Google Scholar
3. US Food and Drug Administration. O-T-C drugs generally recognized as safe, effective and not misbranded. Tentative final order. Federal Register: 1978; 43:1210–1249.Google Scholar
4. Ayliffe, GAJ, Babb, JR, Lilly, HA. Tests for hand disinfection. In: Collins, CH, Allwood, MC, Bloomfield, SF, Fox, A, eds. Disinfectants: Their Use and Evaluation of Effectiveness. London: Academic Press; 1981:37–44.Google Scholar
5. Lowbury, EJL, Lilly, HA, Bull, JF! Disinfection of hands: removal of transient organisms. Brit Med J. 1964; 2:230–233.10.1136/bmj.2.5403.230Google Scholar
6. Rotter, M, Koller, W, Kundi, M, Wewalka, G, Mittermayer, H. Test-methode fur die Wertbemessung van Verfahren fur die Hygienische Handedesinfektion. I. Teil: Beschreibung der Methode. Zbl Bakt Hyg I Abt Orig B. 1977; 164:498–506.Google Scholar
7. Borneff, J, Eggers, HJ, Grün, L, et al. Richtlinien fur die Prüfung und Bewertung chemischer Desinfektionsverfahren. Zbl Bakt Hyg I Abt Orig B. 1981; 172:528–556.Google Scholar
8. Lowbury, EJL, Lilly, HA, Ayliffe, GA. Preoperative disinfection of surgeon's hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora. Brit Med J. 1974; 1:369–372.10.1136/bmj.4.5941.369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Michaud, RN, McGrath, MB, Goss, WA. Application of a gloved-hand model for multiparameter measurements of skin-degerming activity. J Clin Microbiol. 1976; 3:406–413.10.1128/jcm.3.4.406-413.1976CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rotter, M, Koller, W, Wewalka, G, Werner, HP, Ayliffe, GAJ, Babb, J. Evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand disinfection: controlled parallel experiments on the Vienna test model. J Hyg. 1986; 96:27–37.10.1017/S0022172400062501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed