空气消毒机消毒效果的Meta分析

目的评价空气消毒机与常规紫外线灯空气消毒效果。方法对国内相关文献进行搜索,并按Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan5.3软件进行定量分析,比较2种不同空气消毒方法的消毒效果。结果共11篇文献符合纳入标准。因纳入文献存在异质性,故采用随机效应模型分析,两种方法消毒前[WMD=-26.28,95%CI为(-60.31,7.75),P0.05]和消毒后即刻[WMD=22.45,95%CI为(-34.24,79.13),P0.05]菌落数比较,差异均无统计学意义,空气消毒机组消毒后2 h菌落数明显少于紫外线灯组[WMD=-345.11,95%CI为(-478.28,-211.94),P0.05]。结论空气消毒机持续效果较好。

Meta analysis on disinfectant efficacy of air disinfector

ObjectiveTo evaluate disinfectant efficacy of air disinfector and ultraviolet lamp.MethodsDomestic literatures were searched by computer, RevMan 5.3 software provided by the Cochrane collaboration was used for quantitative analysis, efficacy of two kinds of air disinfection methods was compared. ResultsA total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Because the heterogeneity of literatures, random effects model analysis was adopted, colony forming unit (CFU) before disinfection（WMD=-26.28，95%CI：［-60.31，7.75］，P＞0.05 ）and immediately after disinfection（WMD=22.45，95%CI:［-34.24，79.13］，P＞0.05） had no obvious difference between two methods respectively, but CFU of air disinfector 2 hours after disinfection was significantly less than ultraviolet lamp group（WMD=-345.11，95%CI:［-478.28，-211.94］，P＜0.05）.ConclusionAir disinfector has good continuous disinfection efficacy.