Objective: To evaluate the best strategy for pacifier disinfection methods. Material and Methods: The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to find all relevant articles published over the past 20 years, based on PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers extracted data independently by using a standardized form. The following factors were recorded: country of study, type of study, pacifier material, sample number, microorganisms analyzed, decontamination methods used, method accessibility and results found. Results: A total of 121 articles were obtained from all databases. The selected documents underwent a final screening, resulting in 8 articles. The method of disinfection analyzed by the literature were: 3.5% neutral detergent, apple cider vinegar 70% spray, boiling water during 15 minutes, sodium hypochlorite 2.5, hydrogen peroxide 70% spray, chlorhexidine 0.12%, Brushtox®, sterile water and microwave. Conclusion: Because of the broad methods for pacifier disinfection and different levels of accessibility to disinfectant agents, the pacifier consensus for decontamination remains unclear. Although the disinfection methods are diverse, the methods suggested to its disinfection were identified and described in this article.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the best strategy for pacifier disinfection methods. Material and Methods: The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to find all relevant articles published over the past 20 years, based on PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers extracted data independently by using a standardized form. The following factors were recorded: country of study, type of study, pacifier material, sample number, microorganisms analyzed, decontamination methods used, method accessibility and results found. Results: A total of 121 articles were obtained from all databases. The selected documents underwent a final screening, resulting in 8 articles. The method of disinfection analyzed by the literature were: 3.5% neutral detergent, apple cider vinegar 70% spray, boiling water during 15 minutes, sodium hypochlorite 2.5, hydrogen peroxide 70% spray, chlorhexidine 0.12%, Brushtox®, sterile water and microwave. Conclusion: Because of the broad methods for pacifier disinfection and different levels of accessibility to disinfectant agents, the pacifier consensus for decontamination remains unclear. Although the disinfection methods are diverse, the methods suggested to its disinfection were identified and described in this article.

Objetivo Avaliar os fatores associados ao desenvolvimento da úlcera por pressão e comparar a efetividade de tratamentos farmacológicos. Métodos Os fatores associados ao desenvolvimento de úlcera por pressão foram comparados entre pacientes portadores (n=14) e não portadores (n=16) da lesão. Os pacientes com a ferida foram tratados com sulfadiazina de prata 1% ou colagenase 0,6UI/g, sendo acompanhados durante 8 semanas. Os dados coletados foram analisados considerando-se estatisticamente significativo se p<0,05. Resultados A prevalência de úlcera por pressão foi de cerca de 6%. A comparação entre os grupos de portadores e não portadores de úlcera por pressão não revelou diferença estatística significativa entre ocorrência desta segundo idade, sexo, cor da pele, mobilidade e uso de fralda. Por outro lado, os valores de hemoglobina, hematócrito e hemácias foram estatisticamente diferentes entre os grupos, sendo menor naqueles pacientes portadores da lesão. Não houve diferença significativa na área da lesão entre aqueles pacientes tratados com colagenase ou sulfadiazina de prata, embora ambos os tratamentos tenham evidenciado uma redução média da área da lesão. Conclusão Os parâmetros hematológicos apresentaram diferença estatística entre os dois grupos avaliados, ao contrário das demais variáveis analisadas. Em relação ao tratamento das úlceras, não houve diferença na área da lesão na comparação entre a colagenase e a sulfadiazina.

Objective To assess factors associated with the development of pressure ulcers, and to compare the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments. Methods The factors associated with the development of pressure ulcers were compared in lesion-carrying patients (n=14) and non-carriers (n=16). Lesion-carrying patients were treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine or 0.6IU/g collagenase and were observed for 8 weeks. The data collected was analyzed with p<0.05 being statistically relevant. Results The prevalence of pressure ulcers was about 6%. The comparison of carrier and non-carrier groups of pressure ulcers revealed no statistically significant difference in its occurrence with respect to age, sex, skin color, mobility, or the use of diapers. However, levels of hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cells were found to be statistically different between groups, being lower in lesion-carrying patients. There was no significant difference found in lesion area between patients treated with collagenase or silver sulfadiazine, although both groups showed an overall reduction in lesion area through the treatment course. Conclusion Hematologic parameters showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Regarding the treatment of ulcers, there was no difference in the area of the lesion found between the groups treated with collagenase and silver sulfadiazine.