Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Hand hygiene

Hand hygiene

Asepsis is the practice of preventing or breaking the chain of infection. The nurse employs aseptic techniques to prevent the spread of microorganisms and reduce the risk of diseases. Hand hygiene is the cornerstone of aseptic techniques and is classified into medical and surgical asepsis. Medical asepsis includes hand hygiene and the use of gloves. Surgical asepsis, or the sterile technique, refers to practices that render and keep objects and areas free of microorganisms.
Hand washing...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Strengthening simulation design and cultural safe practice: end-user evaluation of the quality simulation assurance framework.

Advances in simulation (London, England)·2026

Same author

Strategies for promoting exercise adherence within a cancer exercise recovery program: a qualitative case study.

BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation·2026

Same author

Advancing Earth System Science With the NASA Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Satellite Mission.

Global change biology·2026

Same author

Changing case definition: An analysis of its impact on Lyme disease surveillance in Nova Scotia.

Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada·2026

Same author

Airborne <sup>1</sup>O<sub>2</sub> Delivery via a Superhydrophobic Dressing as a Pathway to Next-Generation Wound Therapies, an In Vivo Murine Burn Model Study.

Advanced healthcare materials·2026

Same author

Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Nursing Clinical Decision-Making: An Umbrella Review.

Journal of advanced nursing·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 7, 2026

Establishing the Minimal Bactericidal Concentration of an Antimicrobial Agent for Planktonic Cells (MBC-P) and Biofilm Cells (MBC-B)

Establishing the Minimal Bactericidal Concentration of an Antimicrobial Agent for Planktonic Cells (MBC-P) and Biofilm Cells (MBC-B)

Published on: January 2, 2014

A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution.

Amir Ibrahim¹, Shawn Fagan, Tim Keaney

¹From the *Department of Surgery, Division of Burns, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Shriners Hospital, Boston; and †Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Journal of Burn Care & Research : Official Publication of the American Burn Association

|September 18, 2013

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

A 2.5% mafenide acetate solution is effective for burn treatment, reducing costs without increasing infection rates. This study supports its use over the traditional 5% formulation for improved cost-effectiveness in pediatric burn care.

More Related Videos

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Published on: December 30, 2010

An Efficient Method for the Synthesis of Peptoids with Mixed Lysine-type/Arginine-type Monomers and Evaluation of Their Anti-leishmanial Activity

An Efficient Method for the Synthesis of Peptoids with Mixed Lysine-type/Arginine-type Monomers and Evaluation of Their Anti-leishmanial Activity

Published on: November 2, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 7, 2026

Establishing the Minimal Bactericidal Concentration of an Antimicrobial Agent for Planktonic Cells (MBC-P) and Biofilm Cells (MBC-B)

Establishing the Minimal Bactericidal Concentration of an Antimicrobial Agent for Planktonic Cells (MBC-P) and Biofilm Cells (MBC-B)

Published on: January 2, 2014

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Published on: December 30, 2010

An Efficient Method for the Synthesis of Peptoids with Mixed Lysine-type/Arginine-type Monomers and Evaluation of Their Anti-leishmanial Activity

An Efficient Method for the Synthesis of Peptoids with Mixed Lysine-type/Arginine-type Monomers and Evaluation of Their Anti-leishmanial Activity

Published on: November 2, 2016

Area of Science:

Burn Treatment
Pharmacoeconomics
Infectious Disease Control

Background:

The optimal concentration of mafenide acetate for burn treatment remains unclear.
Traditionally, a 5% mafenide acetate solution has been used, despite evidence supporting a 2.5% concentration, making it a high-cost medication.
A new policy aimed to evaluate the cost and patient outcomes of implementing a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution while restricting the 5% formulation.

Purpose of the Study:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution compared to the 5% formulation.
To evaluate patient outcomes, including infection rates and adverse events, associated with the new policy.
To determine if a lower concentration of mafenide acetate is sufficient for treating burn patients.

Main Methods:

Retrospective review of patients receiving mafenide acetate at a pediatric burn hospital before and after policy implementation.
Analysis of duration of therapy, adverse events, cost, wound infection incidence, and bacteremia.
Comparison of treatment outcomes between patients receiving 5% and 2.5% mafenide acetate solutions.

Main Results:

The total cost decreased significantly from $125,000 in 2009 (5% solution) to $38,632 in 2010 (mix of 5% and 2.5% solutions).
Cost per patient reduced from $1811 to $804 after policy implementation.
No significant differences were observed in the incidence of bacteremia or wound infection between the two concentrations.

Conclusions:

A 2.5% mafenide acetate solution is a viable and cost-effective alternative for burn treatment.
The implementation of a 2.5% solution policy did not negatively impact patient outcomes regarding infection.
This approach offers significant cost savings in a pediatric burn hospital setting.