Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication
Objectives The use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol‐based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Academic emergency medicine 2013-02, Vol.20 (2), p.212-215 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 215 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 212 |
| container_title | Academic emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Ali, Syed S. Wilson, Michael P. Castillo, Edward M. Witucki, Peter Simmons, Todd T. Vilke, Gary M. Goldstein, Joshua N. |
| description | Objectives
The use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol‐based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This was a prospective study investigating whether the use of hand sanitizer applied according to manufacturer's recommendations (Group I), applied improperly at standard doses (Group II), or applied improperly at high doses (Group III) had an effect on breathalyzer readings of individuals who had not ingested alcohol.
Methods
The participants of the prospective study were divided into three groups to assess the effect of hand sanitizer on breathalyzer readings. Group I used one pump (1.5 mL) of hand sanitizer (Purell), allowing the hands to dry per manufacturer's recommendations; Group II used one pump (1.5 mL), without allowing the hands to dry; and Group III used two pumps (3 mL), without allowing the hands to dry. Breathalyzer measures for each group are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges. Differences between each sequential group (I vs. II and II vs. III) were assessed using a Mann‐Whitney U‐test (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/acem.12073 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1288311534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1288311534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-62b79ee95ac6c34b39ced1c6961635f922a5db92d96153aaddbb6dbd37f88c983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MtO3DAUBmALgbiVDQ9QWWJTIYX6MnHi5XRKAQlUqaXryLFPOh4l9mA7aqdPX4cZWLDAG1tHn38d_QidU3JF8_msNAxXlJGK76FjWpa8YBVl-_lNhCxEKfgROolxRQgpK1kdoiPGZ0SQmh4jWPhh8A7fKmfwT-Vssv8g4Ae1wV9tTD4k_AOUse53xL7DXwKotFT9ZkKPEFPE1uG0BDxvIzgNE5rrMQG-c8n_tVol690HdNCpPsLZ7j5Fv75dPy5ui_vvN3eL-X2hueS8EKytJIAslRaaz1ouNRiqhRRU8LKTjKnStJKZPCi5Usa0rTCt4VVX11rW_BR92uaug38a83rNYKOGvlcO_Bgbyuqa0_x3lunFG7ryY3B5u0lVUpCKyawut0oHH2OArlkHO6iwaShppvKbqfzmufyMP-4ix3YA80pf2s6AbsEf28Pmnahmvrh-2Ib-B55djm4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1287960729</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Ali, Syed S. ; Wilson, Michael P. ; Castillo, Edward M. ; Witucki, Peter ; Simmons, Todd T. ; Vilke, Gary M. ; Goldstein, Joshua N.</creator><contributor>Goldstein, Joshua N.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ali, Syed S. ; Wilson, Michael P. ; Castillo, Edward M. ; Witucki, Peter ; Simmons, Todd T. ; Vilke, Gary M. ; Goldstein, Joshua N. ; Goldstein, Joshua N.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
The use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol‐based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This was a prospective study investigating whether the use of hand sanitizer applied according to manufacturer's recommendations (Group I), applied improperly at standard doses (Group II), or applied improperly at high doses (Group III) had an effect on breathalyzer readings of individuals who had not ingested alcohol.
Methods
The participants of the prospective study were divided into three groups to assess the effect of hand sanitizer on breathalyzer readings. Group I used one pump (1.5 mL) of hand sanitizer (Purell), allowing the hands to dry per manufacturer's recommendations; Group II used one pump (1.5 mL), without allowing the hands to dry; and Group III used two pumps (3 mL), without allowing the hands to dry. Breathalyzer measures for each group are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges. Differences between each sequential group (I vs. II and II vs. III) were assessed using a Mann‐Whitney U‐test (p < 0.05 significant).
Results
There were 25 study participants in each group for a total of 75 participants. The initial breathalyzer readings of all study participants were 0.000 g/dL. The median breathalyzer reading was 0.004 g/dL in Group I (IQR = 0.001 to 0.008 g/dL), 0.051 g/dL in Group II (IQR = 0.043 to 0.064 g/dL), and 0.119 g/dL in Group III (IQR = 0.089 to 0.134 g/dL). Measures between each subsequent group were all statistically different (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of common alcohol‐based hand sanitizer may cause false‐positive readings with a standard hospital breathalyzer when the operator uses the hand sanitizer correctly. The breathalyzer readings are further elevated if more sanitizer is used or if it is not allowed to dry appropriately.
Resumen
Los Antisépticos Comunes para las Manos Pueden Distorsionar las Lecturas de los Alcoholímetros en Ausencia de Intoxicación Aguda
Objetivos
El uso de antisépticos para las manos a base de alcohol ha llegado a ser universal. Según el conocimiento de los autores, ningún estudio previo ha examinado si la aplicación de antisépticos para manos a base de alcohol por la persona que manipula una máquina de test de alcoholemia afectará a la certeza de las lecturas. Este estudio prospectivo investigó si el uso de antiséptico para manos aplicado según las recomendaciones del fabricante (Grupo I), aplicado incorrectamente a las dosis estándar (Grupo II) o aplicado incorrectamente a dosis altas (Grupo III) tuvo un efecto en las lecturas del alcoholímetro en aquéllos que no habían ingerido alcohol.
Metodología
Los participantes del estudio prospectivo se dividieron en tres grupos para valorar el efecto del antiséptico de manos en las lecturas del alcoholímetro. El Grupo I utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de antiséptico para manos (Purell) y permitió secarse las manos según las recomendaciones del fabricante; el Grupo II utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de Purell, sin permitir secarse las manos; y el Grupo III utilizó 2 pulsos (3 ml) de Purell sin permitir secarse las manos. Las medidas del alcoholímetro para cada grupo se presentaron como medianas con rangos intercuartílicos (RIC), y rangos. Las diferencias entre cada grupo secuencial (I vs II y II vs III) se realizaron mediante el test de la U de Mann‐Whitney (p significativa < 0,05).
Resultados
Hubo 25 participantes en cada grupo del estudio, con un total de 75 participantes. La lectura inicial del alcoholímetro fue de 0.000 g/dL. La mediana de la lectura del alcoholímetro fue de 0,004 g/dL en el Grupo I, 0,051 g/dL en el Grupo II y 0,119 g/dL en el Grupo III. Las medidas entre cada grupo subsiguiente fueron todas estadísticamente significativas (p < 0,001).
Conclusions
El uso de un antiséptico común para manos puede causar lecturas falsamente positivas con un alcoholímetro estándar hospitalario cuando el operador usa el antiséptico para las manos de forma correcta. Las lecturas del alcoholímetro serán cada vez más altas a mayor dosis de antiséptico o si no se permite el secado de forma adecuada.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-6563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-2712</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/acem.12073</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23406081</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Alcohol ; Alcoholic Intoxication - diagnosis ; Breath Tests ; Ethanol ; Ethanol - administration & dosage ; False Positive Reactions ; Female ; Focus groups ; Hand Disinfection - standards ; Hands ; Humans ; Hygiene ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Academic emergency medicine, 2013-02, Vol.20 (2), p.212-215</ispartof><rights>2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine</rights><rights>2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.</rights><rights>Copyright Hanley & Belfus, Inc. Feb 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-62b79ee95ac6c34b39ced1c6961635f922a5db92d96153aaddbb6dbd37f88c983</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-62b79ee95ac6c34b39ced1c6961635f922a5db92d96153aaddbb6dbd37f88c983</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Facem.12073$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Facem.12073$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,1432,27922,27923,45572,45573,46407,46831</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23406081$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Goldstein, Joshua N.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ali, Syed S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castillo, Edward M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witucki, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmons, Todd T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilke, Gary M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Joshua N.</creatorcontrib><title>Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication</title><title>Academic emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Acad Emerg Med</addtitle><description>Objectives
The use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol‐based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This was a prospective study investigating whether the use of hand sanitizer applied according to manufacturer's recommendations (Group I), applied improperly at standard doses (Group II), or applied improperly at high doses (Group III) had an effect on breathalyzer readings of individuals who had not ingested alcohol.
Methods
The participants of the prospective study were divided into three groups to assess the effect of hand sanitizer on breathalyzer readings. Group I used one pump (1.5 mL) of hand sanitizer (Purell), allowing the hands to dry per manufacturer's recommendations; Group II used one pump (1.5 mL), without allowing the hands to dry; and Group III used two pumps (3 mL), without allowing the hands to dry. Breathalyzer measures for each group are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges. Differences between each sequential group (I vs. II and II vs. III) were assessed using a Mann‐Whitney U‐test (p < 0.05 significant).
Results
There were 25 study participants in each group for a total of 75 participants. The initial breathalyzer readings of all study participants were 0.000 g/dL. The median breathalyzer reading was 0.004 g/dL in Group I (IQR = 0.001 to 0.008 g/dL), 0.051 g/dL in Group II (IQR = 0.043 to 0.064 g/dL), and 0.119 g/dL in Group III (IQR = 0.089 to 0.134 g/dL). Measures between each subsequent group were all statistically different (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of common alcohol‐based hand sanitizer may cause false‐positive readings with a standard hospital breathalyzer when the operator uses the hand sanitizer correctly. The breathalyzer readings are further elevated if more sanitizer is used or if it is not allowed to dry appropriately.
Resumen
Los Antisépticos Comunes para las Manos Pueden Distorsionar las Lecturas de los Alcoholímetros en Ausencia de Intoxicación Aguda
Objetivos
El uso de antisépticos para las manos a base de alcohol ha llegado a ser universal. Según el conocimiento de los autores, ningún estudio previo ha examinado si la aplicación de antisépticos para manos a base de alcohol por la persona que manipula una máquina de test de alcoholemia afectará a la certeza de las lecturas. Este estudio prospectivo investigó si el uso de antiséptico para manos aplicado según las recomendaciones del fabricante (Grupo I), aplicado incorrectamente a las dosis estándar (Grupo II) o aplicado incorrectamente a dosis altas (Grupo III) tuvo un efecto en las lecturas del alcoholímetro en aquéllos que no habían ingerido alcohol.
Metodología
Los participantes del estudio prospectivo se dividieron en tres grupos para valorar el efecto del antiséptico de manos en las lecturas del alcoholímetro. El Grupo I utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de antiséptico para manos (Purell) y permitió secarse las manos según las recomendaciones del fabricante; el Grupo II utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de Purell, sin permitir secarse las manos; y el Grupo III utilizó 2 pulsos (3 ml) de Purell sin permitir secarse las manos. Las medidas del alcoholímetro para cada grupo se presentaron como medianas con rangos intercuartílicos (RIC), y rangos. Las diferencias entre cada grupo secuencial (I vs II y II vs III) se realizaron mediante el test de la U de Mann‐Whitney (p significativa < 0,05).
Resultados
Hubo 25 participantes en cada grupo del estudio, con un total de 75 participantes. La lectura inicial del alcoholímetro fue de 0.000 g/dL. La mediana de la lectura del alcoholímetro fue de 0,004 g/dL en el Grupo I, 0,051 g/dL en el Grupo II y 0,119 g/dL en el Grupo III. Las medidas entre cada grupo subsiguiente fueron todas estadísticamente significativas (p < 0,001).
Conclusions
El uso de un antiséptico común para manos puede causar lecturas falsamente positivas con un alcoholímetro estándar hospitalario cuando el operador usa el antiséptico para las manos de forma correcta. Las lecturas del alcoholímetro serán cada vez más altas a mayor dosis de antiséptico o si no se permite el secado de forma adecuada.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Alcohol</subject><subject>Alcoholic Intoxication - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breath Tests</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Ethanol - administration & dosage</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Hand Disinfection - standards</subject><subject>Hands</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hygiene</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1069-6563</issn><issn>1553-2712</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90MtO3DAUBmALgbiVDQ9QWWJTIYX6MnHi5XRKAQlUqaXryLFPOh4l9mA7aqdPX4cZWLDAG1tHn38d_QidU3JF8_msNAxXlJGK76FjWpa8YBVl-_lNhCxEKfgROolxRQgpK1kdoiPGZ0SQmh4jWPhh8A7fKmfwT-Vssv8g4Ae1wV9tTD4k_AOUse53xL7DXwKotFT9ZkKPEFPE1uG0BDxvIzgNE5rrMQG-c8n_tVol690HdNCpPsLZ7j5Fv75dPy5ui_vvN3eL-X2hueS8EKytJIAslRaaz1ouNRiqhRRU8LKTjKnStJKZPCi5Usa0rTCt4VVX11rW_BR92uaug38a83rNYKOGvlcO_Bgbyuqa0_x3lunFG7ryY3B5u0lVUpCKyawut0oHH2OArlkHO6iwaShppvKbqfzmufyMP-4ix3YA80pf2s6AbsEf28Pmnahmvrh-2Ib-B55djm4</recordid><startdate>201302</startdate><enddate>201302</enddate><creator>Ali, Syed S.</creator><creator>Wilson, Michael P.</creator><creator>Castillo, Edward M.</creator><creator>Witucki, Peter</creator><creator>Simmons, Todd T.</creator><creator>Vilke, Gary M.</creator><creator>Goldstein, Joshua N.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201302</creationdate><title>Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication</title><author>Ali, Syed S. ; Wilson, Michael P. ; Castillo, Edward M. ; Witucki, Peter ; Simmons, Todd T. ; Vilke, Gary M. ; Goldstein, Joshua N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-62b79ee95ac6c34b39ced1c6961635f922a5db92d96153aaddbb6dbd37f88c983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Alcohol</topic><topic>Alcoholic Intoxication - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breath Tests</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Ethanol - administration & dosage</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Hand Disinfection - standards</topic><topic>Hands</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hygiene</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ali, Syed S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castillo, Edward M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witucki, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmons, Todd T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilke, Gary M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Joshua N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ali, Syed S.</au><au>Wilson, Michael P.</au><au>Castillo, Edward M.</au><au>Witucki, Peter</au><au>Simmons, Todd T.</au><au>Vilke, Gary M.</au><au>Goldstein, Joshua N.</au><au>Goldstein, Joshua N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication</atitle><jtitle>Academic emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2013-02</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>212</spage><epage>215</epage><pages>212-215</pages><issn>1069-6563</issn><eissn>1553-2712</eissn><abstract>Objectives
The use of alcohol‐based hand sanitizers has recently become widespread. To the authors' knowledge, no previous study has examined whether application of ethanol‐based hand sanitizers by the person operating a common breathalyzer machine will affect the accuracy of the readings. This was a prospective study investigating whether the use of hand sanitizer applied according to manufacturer's recommendations (Group I), applied improperly at standard doses (Group II), or applied improperly at high doses (Group III) had an effect on breathalyzer readings of individuals who had not ingested alcohol.
Methods
The participants of the prospective study were divided into three groups to assess the effect of hand sanitizer on breathalyzer readings. Group I used one pump (1.5 mL) of hand sanitizer (Purell), allowing the hands to dry per manufacturer's recommendations; Group II used one pump (1.5 mL), without allowing the hands to dry; and Group III used two pumps (3 mL), without allowing the hands to dry. Breathalyzer measures for each group are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges. Differences between each sequential group (I vs. II and II vs. III) were assessed using a Mann‐Whitney U‐test (p < 0.05 significant).
Results
There were 25 study participants in each group for a total of 75 participants. The initial breathalyzer readings of all study participants were 0.000 g/dL. The median breathalyzer reading was 0.004 g/dL in Group I (IQR = 0.001 to 0.008 g/dL), 0.051 g/dL in Group II (IQR = 0.043 to 0.064 g/dL), and 0.119 g/dL in Group III (IQR = 0.089 to 0.134 g/dL). Measures between each subsequent group were all statistically different (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of common alcohol‐based hand sanitizer may cause false‐positive readings with a standard hospital breathalyzer when the operator uses the hand sanitizer correctly. The breathalyzer readings are further elevated if more sanitizer is used or if it is not allowed to dry appropriately.
Resumen
Los Antisépticos Comunes para las Manos Pueden Distorsionar las Lecturas de los Alcoholímetros en Ausencia de Intoxicación Aguda
Objetivos
El uso de antisépticos para las manos a base de alcohol ha llegado a ser universal. Según el conocimiento de los autores, ningún estudio previo ha examinado si la aplicación de antisépticos para manos a base de alcohol por la persona que manipula una máquina de test de alcoholemia afectará a la certeza de las lecturas. Este estudio prospectivo investigó si el uso de antiséptico para manos aplicado según las recomendaciones del fabricante (Grupo I), aplicado incorrectamente a las dosis estándar (Grupo II) o aplicado incorrectamente a dosis altas (Grupo III) tuvo un efecto en las lecturas del alcoholímetro en aquéllos que no habían ingerido alcohol.
Metodología
Los participantes del estudio prospectivo se dividieron en tres grupos para valorar el efecto del antiséptico de manos en las lecturas del alcoholímetro. El Grupo I utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de antiséptico para manos (Purell) y permitió secarse las manos según las recomendaciones del fabricante; el Grupo II utilizó un pulso (1,5 ml) de Purell, sin permitir secarse las manos; y el Grupo III utilizó 2 pulsos (3 ml) de Purell sin permitir secarse las manos. Las medidas del alcoholímetro para cada grupo se presentaron como medianas con rangos intercuartílicos (RIC), y rangos. Las diferencias entre cada grupo secuencial (I vs II y II vs III) se realizaron mediante el test de la U de Mann‐Whitney (p significativa < 0,05).
Resultados
Hubo 25 participantes en cada grupo del estudio, con un total de 75 participantes. La lectura inicial del alcoholímetro fue de 0.000 g/dL. La mediana de la lectura del alcoholímetro fue de 0,004 g/dL en el Grupo I, 0,051 g/dL en el Grupo II y 0,119 g/dL en el Grupo III. Las medidas entre cada grupo subsiguiente fueron todas estadísticamente significativas (p < 0,001).
Conclusions
El uso de un antiséptico común para manos puede causar lecturas falsamente positivas con un alcoholímetro estándar hospitalario cuando el operador usa el antiséptico para las manos de forma correcta. Las lecturas del alcoholímetro serán cada vez más altas a mayor dosis de antiséptico o si no se permite el secado de forma adecuada.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>23406081</pmid><doi>10.1111/acem.12073</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1069-6563 |
| ispartof | Academic emergency medicine, 2013-02, Vol.20 (2), p.212-215 |
| issn | 1069-6563 1553-2712 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1288311534 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content |
| subjects | Adult Alcohol Alcoholic Intoxication - diagnosis Breath Tests Ethanol Ethanol - administration & dosage False Positive Reactions Female Focus groups Hand Disinfection - standards Hands Humans Hygiene Male Middle Aged Prospective Studies Young Adult |
| title | Common Hand Sanitizer May Distort Readings of Breathalyzer Tests in the Absence of Acute Intoxication |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T23%3A45%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Common%20Hand%20Sanitizer%20May%20Distort%20Readings%20of%20Breathalyzer%20Tests%20in%20the%20Absence%20of%20Acute%20Intoxication&rft.jtitle=Academic%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Ali,%20Syed%20S.&rft.date=2013-02&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=212&rft.epage=215&rft.pages=212-215&rft.issn=1069-6563&rft.eissn=1553-2712&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/acem.12073&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1288311534%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1287960729&rft_id=info:pmid/23406081&rfr_iscdi=true |