Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Efficacy of Alternative Hand-Washing Agents in Reducing Nosocomial Infections in Intensive Care Units

Open access
Doebbeling, Bradley N., Stanley, Gail L., Sheetz, Carol T., Pfaller, Michael A., Houston, Alison K., Annis, Linda, Li, Ning, Wenzel, Richard P.·1992·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective hand-washing can prevent nosocomial infections, particularly in high-risk areas of the hospital. There are few clinical studies of the efficacy of specific hand-cleansing agents in preventing the transmission of pathogens from health care workers to patients. METHODS: For eight months, we conducted a prospective multiple-crossover trial involving 1894 adult patients in three intensive care units (ICUs). In a given month, the ICU used a hand-washing system involving either chlorhexidine, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent, or 60 percent isopropyl alcohol with the optional use of a nonmedicated soap; in alternate months the other system was used. Rates of nosocomial infection and hand-washing compliance were monitored prospectively. RESULTS: When chlorhexidine was used, there were 152 nosocomial infections, as compared with 202 when the combination of alcohol and soap was used (adjusted incidence-density ratio [IDR], 0.73; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.90). The largest reduction with chlorhexidine was in gastrointestinal infections (IDR, 0.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.64). When chlorhexidine was available, the rates of nosocomial infection declined in each of the ICUs, and health care workers washed their hands more often than when alcohol and soap were used (relative risk, 1.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.60). The total volume of alcohol and soap used was 46 percent that of chlorhexidine (P less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A hand-disinfection system using an antimicrobial agent (chlorhexidine) reduces the rate of nosocomial infections more effectively than one using alcohol and soap. The improvement may be explained at least in part by better compliance with hand-washing instructions when chlorhexidine was used.

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejm199207093270205

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Doebbeling, B. N., Stanley, G. L., Sheetz, C. T., Pfaller, M. A., Houston, A. K., Annis, L., Li, N., & Wenzel, R. P.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1992-07-09
Volume
327
Issue
2
Pages
88-93
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2342068835
Cited by
482
References
25
FWCI
19.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Efficacy of Alternative Hand-Washing Agents in Reducing Nosocomial Infections in Intensive Care Units. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199207093270205
The paper
Doebbeling, B. N., Stanley, G. L., Sheetz, C. T., Pfaller, M. A., Houston, A. K., Annis, L., Li, N., & Wenzel, R. P. (1992). Comparative Efficacy of Alternative Hand-Washing Agents in Reducing Nosocomial Infections in Intensive Care Units. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199207093270205

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.