Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of hand hygiene, surface disinfecting, and other hygiene interventions in preventing or reducing the spread of illnesses from respiratory viruses. DESIGN: Update of a systematic review and meta-analysis focussing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (c-RCTs) evidence only. DATA SOURCES: Eligible trials from the previous Cochrane review, search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase and CINAHL from 01 October 2010 to 01 April 2020, and forward and backward citation analysis of included studies. DATA SELECTION: RCTs and c-RCTs involving people of any age, testing the use of hand hygiene methods, surface disinfection or cleaning, and other miscellaneous barrier interventions. Face masks, eye protection, and person distancing are covered in Part 1 of our systematic review. Outcomes included acute respiratory illness (ARI), influenza-like illness (ILI) or laboratory-confirmed influenza (influenza) and/or related consequences (e.g. death, absenteeism from school or work). DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Six authors working in pairs independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. The generalised inverse variance method was used for pooling by using the random-effects model, and results reported with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 51 eligible trials. We included 25 randomised trials comparing hand hygiene interventions with a control; 15 of these could be included in meta-analyses. We pooled 8 trials for the outcome of ARI. Hand hygiene showed a 16% relative reduction in the number of participants with ARI (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86) in the intervention group. When we considered the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and influenza, the RR for ILI was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.14), and for influenza the RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34). Three trials measured absenteeism. We found a 36% relative reduction in absentee numbers in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.71). Comparison of different hand hygiene interventions did not favour one intervention type over another. We found no incremental effects of combining hand hygiene with using face masks or disinfecting surfaces or objects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence for the impact of hand hygiene in reducing ILI and influenza, the modest evidence for reducing the burden of ARIs, and related absenteeism, justifies reinforcing the standard recommendation for hand hygiene measures to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Funding for relevant trials with an emphasis on adherence and compliance with such a measure is crucial to inform policy and global pandemic preparedness with confidence and precision.
Competing Interest Statement
- Mr. Clark has received a prize from Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) for developing the Polyglot Search Translator, a tool that is used in this review. - Dr Conly holds grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions and was the primary local Investigator for a Staphylococcus aureus vaccine study funded by Pfizer for which all funding was provided only to the University of Calgary for the conduct of the trial. He received money from the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control to cover accommodations and airfare to attend a Think Tank Meeting related to Infection Prevention and Control in each of the years of 2017 and 2019. - Prof Del Mar holds a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia for funding the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. He and Dr Tammy Hoffmann hold various grants from NHMRC on improving antibiotic prescribing in primary care. - During the conduct of the study, Dr Elain Beller, Dr Mark Jones and other staff in the Institute lead by Prof Paul Glasziou received grants from NIHR and WHO to assist with the rapid update of this review. - Dr Jeffersons full disclosure is available here: https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson/ - Dr. van Driel is a member of Clinical Intervention Advisory Group advising the National Prescribing Service, Australia and has received personal fees and non-financial support from NPS Medicinewise for that. She has also received personal fees and non-financial support from Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd as a member of the writing group for the Respiratory Guidelines. - All other authors have no additional interests to declare.
Funding Statement
Funding: NIHR grant number NIHR130721 and WHO 2020/1011941 (pending) to assist with the rapid update of this review. The funders had no role in any aspect of preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This is a systematic review with meta-analysis which used the data of the included studies. All the data used in the forest plots are available. Dr Jones (the manuscripts guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
