↓ Skip to main content

How does washing without water perform compared to the traditional bed bath: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How does washing without water perform compared to the traditional bed bath: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0425-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian M. V. Groven, Sandra M. G. Zwakhalen, Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, Erik J. T. Joosten, Jan P. H. Hamers

Abstract

For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are increasingly used in health care. Washing without water is one such alternative that has been claimed to offer several advantages, such as improved hygiene and skin condition. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence on outcomes of the washing without water concept compared to the traditional bed bath. Controlled trials about washing without water outcomes published after 1994 were collected by means of a systematic literature search in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PUBMED at the 25th of February, 2016. Additionally, references and citations were searched and experts contacted. Studies were eligible if (1) the study designs included outcomes of washing without water products developed for the full body wash compared to the traditional bed bath, and (2) they were controlled trials. Two researchers independently used a standardized quality checklist to assess the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Finally, outcomes were categorized in (1) physiological outcomes related to hygiene and skin condition, (2) stakeholder-related outcomes, and (3) organizational outcomes in the data synthesis. Out of 33 potentially relevant articles subjected to full text screening, six studies met the eligibility criteria. Only two studies (of the same research group) were considered of high quality. The results of these high quality studies show that washing without water performed better than the traditional bed bath regarding skin abnormalities and bathing completeness. No differences between washing without water and the traditional bed bath were found for outcomes related to significant skin lesions, resistance during bathing and costs in the studies of high quality. There is limited moderate to high quality evidence that washing without water is not inferior to the traditional bed bath. Future research on washing without water is needed and should pay special attention to costs, hygiene, and to stakeholder-related outcomes, such as experiences and value perceptions of patients, nursing staff and family.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Professor 5 4%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 43 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Engineering 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 46 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,485,878
of 25,392,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#272
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,910
of 420,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#7
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.