Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41200411›Full record

ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2025

Antisepsis before skin injections: does the WHO recommendation for washing, instead alcohol-based antisepsis, achieve the same efficacy?

Torsten Koburger-Janssen, Paula Zwicker, Ojan Assadian, Martin Exner, Uche Eze, Jürgen Gebel, David Leaper, Simone Scheithauer, Miranda Suchomel, Axel Kramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Torsten Koburger-JanssenHygiene Nord GmbH, Greifswald, Germany.
Paula ZwickerInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Germany.
Ojan AssadianUniversity Hospital Wiener Neustadt, Wiener Neustadt, Austria and Danube Private University, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Martin ExnerEmeritus Professor, Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, University of Bonn, Germany.
Uche EzeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Jürgen GebelInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University of Bonn, Germany.
David LeaperEmeritus Professor, Universities of Newcastle and Huddersfield, UK.
Simone ScheithauerDepartment of Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG), Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Miranda SuchomelInstitute of Hygiene and Applied Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Axel KramerInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cleaning and reduction of microbial load on the skin is necessary before injections because of the colonization of the skin with resident flora and the presence of transient flora. Even after optimal skin antisepsis, there is a risk of infection, albeit a very low one. The World Health Organisation (WHO) based on a systematic review on the infection risk after injections and skin antisepsis, does not recommend, alcohol-based skin antisepsis as being necessary before intradermal, subcutaneous and intramuscular injections and that washing the skin with soap and water alone is sufficient. As there is no clear evidence for the benefit of using alcohol over soap washing prior to injection, this study compared the efficacy of alcohol and soap on volunteers. Method: Liquid washing emulsion or potash soap (Sapo Kalinus, German Pharmacopoeia) or propan-2-ol 70%v/v, was applied to test areas on the upper arms of 23 volunteers. To test the soap, in trial 1 after 15-second swabbing, and a further 15 seconds of air-drying, the swabbed areas were rinsed, dabbed dry, and microbiological samples taken with sterile swabs. In trial 2, after 15 seconds of swabbing, samples were taken in the same manner. The comparator alcohol was rubbed in for 15 seconds in trial 1 and for 30 seconds in trial 2 without rinsing. Swabs were transferred into tryptic soy broth and suspensions plated onto agar. Results: The reduction of bacteria was around 1x lg and did not differ significantly between the soaps and propan-2-ol. There was also no difference when comparing the two trials. Discussion: One reason for the equivalent efficacy of both methods is probably the low colonization density of the skin of the arms. Conclusion: Both methods are acceptable for legal reasons. However, if no live vaccines are applied, alcohol-based antiseptics are preferable because they are more user-friendly.

Indexed as

efficacy alcohol-based antisepticsefficacy soap washinginfection risk skin injectionsskin antisepsis

Identifiers

PMID41200411
PMCPMC12587272

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.