Cited by 48Infection Control in HealthcareNosocomial Infections in ICUInfection Control and Ventilation

Environmental cleaning to prevent hospital-acquired infections on non-intensive care units: a pragmatic, single-centre, cluster randomized controlled, crossover trial comparing soap-based, disinfection and probiotic cleaning

Open access
Leistner, Rasmus, Kohlmorgen, Britta, Brodzinski, Annika, Schwab, Frank, Lemke, Elke, Zakonsky, Gregor, Gastmeier, Petra·2023·eClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background: The impact of environmental hygiene on the occurrence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) remains a subject of debate. We determined the effect of three different surface-cleaning strategies on the incidence of HAIs. Methods: Between June 2017 and August 2018 we conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled crossover trial at 18 non-ICU wards in the university hospital of Berlin, Germany. Surfaces in patient rooms on the study wards were routinely cleaned using one of three agents: Soap-based (reference), disinfectant and probiotic. Each strategy was used on each ward for four consecutive months (4m-4m-4m). There was a one-month wash-in period at the beginning of the study and after each change in strategy. The order of strategies used was randomized for each ward. Primary outcome was the incidence of HAIs. The trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012675. Findings: 13,896 admitted patients met the inclusion criteria, including 4708 in the soap-based (reference) arm, 4535 in the disinfectant arm and 4653 in the probiotic arm. In the reference group, the incidence density of HAIs was 2.31 per 1000 exposure days. The incidence density was similar in the disinfectant arm 2.21 cases per 1000 exposure days (IRR 0.95; 95% CI 0.69-1.31; p = 0.953) and the probiotic arm 2.21 cases per 1000 exposure days (IRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69-1.32; p = 0.955). Interpretation: In non-ICU wards, routine surface disinfection proved not superior to soap-based or probiotic cleaning in terms of HAI prevention. Thus, probiotic cleaning could be an interesting alternative, especially in terms of environmental protection. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (03Z0818C). Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-004308).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101958

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other PBS formulations including Bacillus probiotics are generally more effective in controlling nosocomial pathogens and AMR than disinfectants or other detergents.

    “Similar results were obtained when other PBS formulations, including Bacillus probiotics, were used, revealing their generally greater effectiveness in controlling nosocomial pathogens and AMR [37] than disinfectants or other detergents [38].”

    From Profiling the resistome and virulome of Bacillus strains used for probiotic-based sanitation: a multicenter WGS analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says this trial found similar results for probiotic cleaning and the other two strategies, especially disinfection, and no overall significant effect on multidrug-resistant-organism infections. Although it mentions earlier studies showing reductions in surface pathogens or resistance markers, it does not find that probiotic cleaning is generally more effective than disinfectants or detergents. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Behnke M, Aghdassi SJ, Hansen S, Pen A, Gastmeier P, Piening B. The prevalence of nosocomial infection and antibiotic use in German hospitals. Deutsches Ärzteblatt Int. 2017;114(50):851.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leistner, R., Kohlmorgen, B., Brodzinski, A., Schwab, F., Lemke, E., Zakonsky, G., & Gastmeier, P.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Stiftung Charité (DE)
Corresponding author
Leistner, Rasmus
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
59
Pages
101958
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362675562
Cited by
48
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5
FWCI
9.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research Berlin Office (03Z0818C)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-004308)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (KARMIN – 03Z0818C)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
Keywords
nosocomial infections, environmental cleaning, surface disinfection, environmental hygiene, non-intensive care units, infection control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review