ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2024
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The arms of chairs in outpatient oncology clinics are frequently contaminated with cyclophosphamide. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of decontamination scenarios. Methods: This was a descriptive simulation-type study of 6 decontamination scenarios of a silicone fabric surface contaminated with 10 μg of cyclophosphamide. The decontamination products tested (quaternary ammonium, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.005% detergent, and sodium hypochlorite 0.5%) were applied with microfibre wipes. Residual contamination was measured using an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry system with identical cyclophosphamide detection and quantification limits (0.0006 ng/cm Results: Among the 59 samples, 3 blanks were negative, 5 allowed measurement of the recovery rate (93.7% [standard deviation 4.6%]), and 51 were experimental. The average efficiency of the agents was greater than or equal to 99.79%. Regardless of the agent used, effectiveness was 99.30% (SD 1.20%) after 1 cleanse ( Conclusion: The 6 decontamination scenarios were effective. Repeated cleaning marginally increased the effectiveness of decontamination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.