UNASSIGNED: Pica indicates the persistent ingestion of inedible substances over a period of at least 1 month, being discordant to the individual\'s cognitive development level and not directly attributable to cultural or social normative practices. The literature suggests that the prevalence of pica varies significantly according to the social and clinical context. It can co-occur with psychiatric disorders, with its etiology being poorly understood and most likely multifactorial. In this article, we report the case of a patient in her 50s with a clinical setting compatible with soap ingestion variant of pica disorder. In addition to the variety of ingested substances, pica can be associated with heterogeneous behavior, mainly of the obsessive-compulsive spectrum. Despite recent research, this condition is still a target of much speculation. This is a very rare and challenging presentation of a soap ingestion variant of pica with very few similar cases described to date.

Humanitarian crises such as disease outbreaks, conflict and displacement and natural disasters affect millions of people primarily in low- and middle-income countries. Here, they often reside in areas with poor environmental health conditions leading to an increased burden of infectious diseases such as gastrointestinal and respiratory infections. Water, sanitation, and hygiene behaviours are critical to prevent such infections and deaths. A scoping review was conducted to map out what is known about the association between three mental health disorders and people\'s perceived and actual ability to practice hygiene-related behaviours, particularly handwashing, in humanitarian and pandemic crises. Published and grey literature was identified through database searches, humanitarian-relevant portals, and consultations with key stakeholders in the humanitarian sector. 25 publications were included, 21 were peer-reviewed published articles and four were grey literature publications. Most of the studies were conducted in mainland China (n = 12) and most were conducted in an outbreak setting (n = 20). Six studies found a positive correlation between handwashing and anxiety where participants with higher rates of anxiety were more likely to practice handwashing with soap. Four studies found an inverse relationship where those with higher rates of anxiety were less likely to wash their hands with soap. The review found mixed results for the association between handwashing and depression, with four of the seven studies reporting those with higher rates of depression were less likely to wash their hands, while the remaining studies found that higher depression scores resulted in more handwashing. Mixed results were also found between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and handwashing. Two studies found that lower scores of PTSD were associated with better hygiene practices, including handwashing with soap. The contradictory patterns suggest that researchers and practitioners need to explore this association further, in a wider range of crises, and need to standardize tools to do so.

Hand hygiene is an important measure to prevent disease transmission.
To summarise current international guideline recommendations for hand hygiene in community settings and to assess to what extent they are consistent and evidence based.
We included international guidelines with one or more recommendations on hand hygiene in community settings-categorised as domestic, public or institutional-published by international organisations, in English or French, between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2021.
To identify relevant guidelines, we searched the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing Database, Google, websites of international organisations, and contacted expert organisations and individuals.
Recommendations were mapped to four areas related to hand hygiene: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures. Recommendations were assessed for consistency, concordance and whether supported by evidence.
We identified 51 guidelines containing 923 recommendations published between 1999 and 2021 by multilateral agencies and international non-governmental organisations. Handwashing with soap is consistently recommended as the preferred method for hand hygiene across all community settings. Most guidelines specifically recommend handwashing with plain soap and running water for at least 20 s; single-use paper towels for hand drying; and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) as a complement or alternative to handwashing. There are inconsistent and discordant recommendations for water quality for handwashing, affordable and effective alternatives to soap and ABHR, and the design of handwashing stations. There are gaps in recommendations on soap and water quantity, behaviour change approaches and government measures required for effective hand hygiene. Less than 10% of recommendations are supported by any cited evidence.
While current international guidelines consistently recommend handwashing with soap across community settings, there remain gaps in recommendations where clear evidence-based guidance might support more effective policy and investment.

Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with 83% of ARI mortality occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) before the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the effect of interventions promoting handwashing with soap on ARI in LMICs.
In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Global Index Medicus for studies of handwashing with soap interventions in LMICs from inception to May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies of interventions conducted in domestic, school, or childcare settings. Interventions promoting hand hygiene methods other than handwashing with soap were excluded, as were interventions in health-care facilities or the workplace. The primary outcome was ARI morbidity arising from any pathogen for participants of any age. Secondary outcomes were lower respiratory infection, upper respiratory infection, influenza confirmed by diagnostic test, COVID-19 confirmed by diagnostic test, and all-cause mortality. We extracted relative risks (RRs), using random-effects meta-analysis to analyse study results, and metaregression to evaluate heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias in individual studies using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and assessed the overall body of evidence using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021231414.
26 studies with 161 659 participants met inclusion criteria, providing 27 comparisons (21 randomised). Interventions promoting handwashing with soap reduced any ARI compared with no handwashing intervention (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·76-0·90], I2 88%; 27 comparisons). Interventions also reduced lower respiratory infections (0·78 [0·64-0·94], I2 64%; 12 comparisons) and upper respiratory infections (0·74 [0·59-0·93], I2 91%; seven comparisons), but not test-confirmed influenza (0·94 [0·42-2·11], I2 90%; three comparisons), test-confirmed COVID-19 (no comparisons), or all-cause mortality (prevalence ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·71-1·27]; one comparison). For ARI, no heterogeneity covariates were significant at p<0·1 and the GRADE rating was moderate certainty evidence.
Interventions promoting handwashing with soap can reduce ARI in LMICs, and could help to prevent the large burden of respiratory disease.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, and UK FCDO.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of washing in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) on radiation dermatitis (RD) severity.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases between January 1, 1946, and January 31, 2023. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effects of washing with or without soap on RD were identified. A meta-analysis was conducted for clinician-reported outcomes using RevMan 5.4 and a narrative synthesis for patient-reported outcomes due to a lack of reported data amenable to quantitative comparison in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. The Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB2) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS: Two RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Washing with or without soap significantly reduced the incidence of severe RD (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, p < 0.01) and moist desquamation (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.52, p < 0.01). Two of four trials found an association between washing and reduced itching score (p = 0.38). Pain score was not found to be significantly different with or without washing in any of the four studies (p = 0.07). The two studies that assessed burn scores did not detect any difference between the washing group versus no washing group (p = 0.25). Washing was associated with improved quality of life (QoL) measures in one study.
CONCLUSIONS: Washing with or without soap during RT resulted in less severe RD and less moist desquamation. Given the QoL benefits of washing, it should be advocated as part of routine skin care during RT.

Estimates of the effectiveness of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions that provide high levels of service on childhood diarrhoea are scarce. We aimed to provide up-to-date estimates on the burden of disease attributable to WASH and on the effects of different types of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhoea in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated previous reviews following their search strategy by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BIOSIS Citation Index for studies of basic WASH interventions and of WASH interventions providing a high level of service, published between Jan 1, 2016, and May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials conducted at household or community level that matched exposure categories of the so-called service ladder approach of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for WASH. Two reviewers independently extracted study-level data and assessed risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analysed extracted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs using random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016043164.
19 837 records were identified from the search, of which 124 studies were included, providing 83 water (62 616 children), 20 sanitation (40 799 children), and 41 hygiene (98 416 children) comparisons. Compared with untreated water from an unimproved source, risk of diarrhoea was reduced by up to 50% with water treated at point of use (POU): filtration (n=23 studies; RR 0·50 [95% CI 0·41-0·60]), solar treatment (n=13; 0·63 [0·50-0·80]), and chlorination (n=25; 0·66 [0·56-0·77]). Compared with an unimproved source, provision of an improved drinking water supply on premises with higher water quality reduced diarrhoea risk by 52% (n=2; 0·48 [0·26-0·87]). Overall, sanitation interventions reduced diarrhoea risk by 24% (0·76 [0·61-0·94]). Compared with unimproved sanitation, providing sewer connection reduced diarrhoea risk by 47% (n=5; 0·53 [0·30-0·93]). Promotion of handwashing with soap reduced diarrhoea risk by 30% (0·70 [0·64-0·76]).
WASH interventions reduced risk of diarrhoea in children in LMICs. Interventions supplying either water filtered at POU, higher water quality from an improved source on premises, or basic sanitation services with sewer connection were associated with increased reductions. Our results support higher service levels called for under SDG 6. Notably, no studies evaluated interventions that delivered access to safely managed WASH services, the level of service to which universal coverage by 2030 is committed under the SDG.
WHO, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of Sn-2-palmitate-enriched formula feeding on infants\' growth, stool characteristics, stool fatty acid (FA) soap contents and bone mineral content (BMC). We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials published up to April 2022. Sixteen studies involving 1,931 infants were included. From each included study, weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each of the above mentioned outcomes were extracted and pooled with a fixed-effects model (I2 ≤ 50%) or a random-effects model (I2 > 50%). Infants fed Sn-2-palmitate-enriched formula exhibited greater weight gains (WMD: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.39 g/d; I2 = 0.00%), lower contents of total stool FA soaps (WMD: -3.47; 95% CI: -5.08, -1.86 mg/100 mg; I2 = 0.00%) and higher BMC (WMD: 7.08; 95% CI: 4.05, 10.10; I2 = 0.00%) than infants fed standard formula. However, no difference was observed in these outcomes between infants fed Sn-2-palmitate-enriched formula and those fed human milk. This meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with standard formula feeding, Sn-2-palmitate-enriched formula feeding could effectively promote weight gains, bone mineral accumulation and stool FA soap reduction in infants.

Soap and water are often considered the gold standard for dermal decontamination. However, recent systematic reviews have shown that these methods often result in incomplete decontamination and may even induce contaminant absorption due to the \"wash-in\" effect. Therefore, it is important to gain insight on other decontamination methods. A literature search was done using PubMed to find experimental studies relating to dry decontamination performed with readily available items. Seven studies met eligibility criteria, and the study model, dry decontaminant, method of dry decontamination, method of analyzing decontamination, and main conclusions from each study were extracted, summarized, and compared. Important conclusions include that all studies investigated found that dry decontamination yielded decreases in contamination. In addition, it was shown by multiple studies that not only the decontaminant, but the manner in which it is used (method used [blotting, rubbing, etc.], amount used, and whether decontamination instructions are provided to exposed individuals) is vital to success. Finally, in all four studies that investigated wet and dry decontamination combination protocols, combinations were more efficacious than dry decontamination alone. However, this means that dry improvised decontamination can be performed while waiting for the deployment and arrival of further formal decontaminants. These conclusions deserve consideration in the event that universal decontamination guidelines are designed. However, more studies are required in order to draw definitive conclusions regarding the important topic of dermal decontamination.

OBJECTIVE: While the World Health Organization has recommended preoperative washing with plain or antimicrobial soap for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention, it has not formulated recommendations on use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated cloths. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of preoperative bathing with CHG-cloths on SSI incidence.
METHODS: Publications were searched on Medline, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Clinical Trial between 01/01/1990 and 30/06/2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-randomized, case-control and cohort studies on patients with surgery (Population) having preoperative bathing with CHG-cloths (Intervention) or antiseptic soap, plain soap, placebo, no washing, no instruction (Comparator) were included. The main outcome was SSI occurrence. The results were synthetized using the Odds-Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval [95%CI]. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools and evidence quality with the GRADE method. Statistics were calculated on RevMan5.3.
RESULTS: All in all, 1108 publications were identified and 3 were included in the meta-analysis. OR of the 2 cohort studies was 0.25 [95%CI: 0.13-0.50] for use of CHG-cloths the evening and the morning before intervention versus non-compliance with preoperative washing. OR of the RCT was 0.12 [95%CI: 0.02-1.00] for use of CHG-cloths the evening and the morning before intervention versus a shower with antibacterial soap the evening before the intervention. Study quality was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: While the available studies show a benefit for CHG-cloths on SSI occurrence in orthopaedic surgery, there is no comparison with usual practices. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefit of CHG-cloths for preoperative washing.

Water and/or soap and water solutions have historically been used as first-line decontamination strategies for a wide variety of dermal contaminants from workplace exposure, environmental pesticides, and civilian chemical warfare. Although water and/or soap and water solutions are often considered a gold standard of decontamination, many studies have found other decontamination methods to be superior. This systematic review summarizes the available data on in vitro animal models contaminated with a various chemicals and their decontamination with water and/or soap and water solutions using in vitro animal models. A comprehensive literature search was performed using Concordance, Embase, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to find in vitro animal studies that provided data on dermal decontamination using water and/or soap and water solutions. Five studies were included that analyzed 11 contaminants across two in vitro animal models (rats and pigs). Water alone was used as a decontamination method for 63.6% of the contaminants (n = 7/11) and water and soap solutions for decontamination in 54.6% of contaminants (n = 6/11). Water alone provided incomplete contaminant removal of five of seven contaminants studied; soap and water did not show significant difference in decontamination when compared with other solutions for all four contaminants and was superior to water for both contaminants studied. Water and/or soap and water are used as decontamination strategies for a variety of dermal contamination events, but for many contaminants, they do not provide complete contamination when compared with newer decontamination solutions studied with in vitro animal models.