key: cord-0855342-xhnh1iqu
authors: Olsen, Matthew; Campos, Mariana; Lohning, Anna; Jones, Peter; Legget, John; Bannach-Brown, Alexandra; McKirdy, Simon; Alghafri, Rashed; Tajouri, Lotti
title: Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping review
date: 2020-04-28
journal: Travel Med Infect Dis
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101704
sha: 07c3abe452fc506dac95dfb918aaec8e1a89c814
doc_id: 855342
cord_uid: xhnh1iqu
Abstract Background Mobile phones have become an integral part of modern society. As possible breeding grounds for microbial organisms, these constitute a potential global public health risk for microbial transmission. Objective Scoping review of literature examining microbial's presence on mobile phones in both health care (HC) and community settings. Methods A search (PubMed&GoogleScholar) was conducted from January 2005–December 2019 to identify English language studies. Studies were included if samples from mobile phones were tested for bacteria, fungi, and/or viruses; and if the sampling was carried out in any HC setting, and/or within the general community. Any other studies exploring mobile phones that did not identify specific microorganisms were excluded. Results A total of 56 studies were included (from 24 countries). Most studies identified the presence of bacteria (54/56), while 16 studies reported the presence of fungi. One study focused solely on RNA viruses. Staphylococcus aureus, and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci were the most numerous identified organisms present on mobile phones. These two species and Escherichia coli were present in over a third of studies both in HC and community samples. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus, Acinetobacter sp., and Bacillus sp. were present in over a third of the studies in HC settings. Conclusions While this scoping review of literature regarding microbial identification on mobile phones in HC and community settings did not directly address the issue of SARS-CoV-2 responsible for COVID-19, this work exposes the possible role of mobile phones as a ‘Trojan horse’ contributing to the transmission of microbial infections in epidemics and pandemics.
Mobile phones (both keypad and smartphone devices) have become an integral part of modern societal life and are in the hands of billions of users worldwide every day. Between 2011-2018 the adoption rate of mobile phones within the community skyrocketed from 10 to 60 percent while the upward trend is expected to reach 79% by 2025 [1] .
Mobile phone use is increasing globally with higher usage rates in certain demographics. In Australia, a consumer survey (n = 800) was conducted by Di Marzio Research and TKW, to determine which age groups owned a smartphone device. The results showed that 86%-94% of individuals aged below 65 years, within the standard age brackets, have a smartphone and smartphone penetration does not differ significantly between gender [2] .
Furthermore, a US-based survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2018 suggested that consumers are more likely to own, than not own, a smartphone: individuals aged between 18-29 had smartphone ownership rates of 96%, whereas individuals aged over 65 years had ownership rates of 53% [3] .
Fomite-based transmission occurs when microorganisms from an infected individual are deposited on an inanimate object and then subsequently transmitted to a new host [4] .
Fomite-mediated transmission is a critical pathway for causing infectious disease in both community and health care settings [5, 6] .
Four main factors appear to impact the potential risk of microbial transmission via fomites:
(1) the specific species present, (2) the number of microorganisms present, (3) the size of the fomite, and (4) the rate at which they are touched by humans.
Studies outlined that transmissibility of transient microbial flora depends on the specific species present as well as the number of microorganisms on the surface [7, 8] . A 2008 study investigating the hand-based microbiome of 51 healthy adult volunteers found that on average an individual had more than 150 bacterial species, of which, 94% belonged to the Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria phyla [9] . A study exploring human hand bacterial and fungal microbiome diversity discovered Malassezia spp. and Aspergillus spp. as the most common and second most common fungal microorganisms, respectively [10] . Additionally, infectious individuals who use their hands when covering a cough divert infective pathogens from the droplet route to the hand-fomite route, which has the potential to increase fomite transmission from highly touched devices [11] . Recently, the rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, responsible for COVID-19, has challenged the scientific community to identify the undetected pathways. With the current pandemic and its links to modern transport (i.e. planes, cruise ships) there has been a lot of interest in mobile phones as one of the pathways by which SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted.
Contamination of surfaces and equipment are well-documented sources of nosocomial infections, where infected individuals interact with surrounding surfaces and 'high-touch surfaces' and facilitate the transmission of microbes to other patients and health care workers [13] [14] [15] [16] . Some of the organisms identified in the studies mentioned include vancomycinresistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA),
Clostridium difficile (C. diff), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Not only are mobile phones pervasive in terms of personal use, they are now considered essential and integrated tools at workplaces including health care related professions. A 2013 study by Sondhi and Devgan explored smartphone application in a paediatric ward. This study highlighted the effectiveness of smartphones with a wide range of applications including medical calculators (Qx, PICU calculator, Phototherapy calculator), drug information (Micromedex drug information, the Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy), epidemiology (LearnStat) and medical news (MedPage). Additionally, the study indicates that such devices enable health care providers to connect with clinical information at the point of care, which ultimately provides patients with the best possible evidence-based practise. Of importance, the article suggests that mobile phone and smartphone use in the clinical setting can act as a source of distraction and potentially compromise the aseptic environment [17] .
Improving and implementing hygienic practices in hospitals is an ongoing challenge. It is surprising that to date no general national or international guidelines have been developed to best manage the risk posed specifically by mobile phones despite current research demonstrating their use by most clinical staff whilst on duty [17] [18] [19] . and while in operation, can often heat up to temperatures that favour the survival and possibly growth of microorganisms. Combined with the fact that cleaning and disinfection of mobile phones is not a common practice with up to 72% of mobile phone users never washing their devices (Tajouri et al. Unpublished data). It is likely that they constitute a suitable fomite, meaning an inanimate platform with microbial contamination. The frequent handling of billions of mobile phones worldwide, which are often microbially contaminated, provides the potential for them to act as 'Trojan Horses', a term first presented by [20] enabling disease infection transmission globally.
This scoping review focuses on the available literature regarding microbial profiles of mobile phones in order to synthesise the knowledge on their contamination by a diverse range of microorganisms, and to determine whether the microbiome on mobile phones differs between health care and community populations.
This scoping review follows the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This scoping review study was not registered.
We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for studies that identified and evaluated microorganism populations on mobile phones/smartphones within the health care setting and the general community (non-health care setting). The PubMed database was chosen in order to select for biomedical journals and publications, whilst Google Scholar was chosen to identify free-text articles that would normally be unidentified from the PubMed search. OR "cellular phones" OR "cellular phone" OR "Personal Digital Assistant" OR "personal digital assistants" OR "Computers, Handheld"[MeSH] OR "smartphone" OR "smartphones") AND (physician OR physicians OR doctor OR doctors OR student OR students OR health personnel OR medical personnel OR dental personnel OR university OR college OR university college OR teaching institution OR community OR public).
Studies were included if the research described tested samples on mobile phones, identified microorganisms present in each sample (including bacteria, fungi and viruses), was published in 2005 or later, and whether the study was available in English. Studies that reported microbial populations collected from mobile phones in either hospital-based or communitybased settings or both were included in the review.
Studies that did not explore microbial populations on mobile phones but instead explored contamination rates of contaminated equipment, clothing, keyboards, computer mice, pens and other fomites were excluded. Furthermore, studies that explored the effectiveness of disinfection and decontamination practices with no mention of identification of microorganisms were also excluded.
Following the database search, we uploaded the selected studies to RefWorks and removed any duplicates. The titles were first screened from each database, followed by the abstracts retrieved by one author (MO). The full text of the remaining articles was independently screened by two authors (MO and LT) to determine the final eligibility.
One author (MO) extracted and compiled the data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and the data was independently put through quality assurance and quality checks by another two authors (MC and ABB). The compiled data included: author/year, country, target of the study, sample size (number of phones and/or swabs), setting (health care or community), microbial profiling techniques (spot test, biochemical tests, PCR, DNA sequencing), specificity of microbial profiling techniques (low, medium, high, very high), total number of isolates detected, and number of isolates detected for each species or taxonomic unit. Some studies contained typographical errors in the background and discussion/conclusion sections. These studies were still included in the final review as there was no change to the data and figures presented. Two studies presented tables of results in which the values did not add up to the total. In these two cases, we included the studies considering the values presented for individual species as correct.
We performed a qualitative analysis of the study characteristics and compiled the quantitative data for all studies included in this review to achieve a synthesis of the last 15 years of identification of microorganisms on mobile phones. Selected articles used in this systematic review were checked for their content by two additional co-authors (MC and AB) for quality control and quality assurance to prevent mistakes of information used in this review. Such quality assessment involved re-opening every publication and checking all input values listed in the review tables and so for every microbial species and asserting that results of each publication are complete.
We did not undertake statistical testing of the values achieved, as aims and methodologies between them were extremely varied and inconsistent. Nonetheless, we believe the results can inform a general pattern in health care and community settings worldwide.
Following the search, 3652 articles were retrieved from the literature, with 2684 articles from PubMed, 948 articles from Google Scholar and an additional 20 articles identified through a manual search. After duplicates were removed, the 3110 articles remaining were screened based on the inclusion criteria. Of these, 145 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 89 articles were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Finally, 56 articles met the criteria for full review and were included in the final analysis. Figure 1 represents the PRISMA flow diagram outlining the selected studies that passed the criteria for full review.
The systematic search identified 56 studies that were published between 2006 and 2019. This review includes studies representing 24 countries, with the most publications arising from India (19) , followed by Egypt (5), and Nigeria (4). Table 1 provides a qualitative overview of the studies included here. Ten studies were comparative between two or more population groups; 47 studies sampled the population of Heath Care Workers, and 18 studies sampled the population in the general community. The terminology of target organisms in the studies was mixed. Some studies targeted identification of 'microorganisms' or 'pathogens' or 'microbial flora' but only reported bacteria. It is unknown whether an attempt was made to detect other types or organisms. All but two publications (54 out of 56) targeted or reported on bacteria isolates; however, in multiple cases, only 'clinically important' or 'pathogenic' bacteria were presented in the results. One article focused solely on Candida species, 5 articles targeted fungi as well as bacteria, and another 10 articles reported on fungi despite targeting only bacteria. One article focused solely on viral RNA (Table 1) . [75] x Saudi Arabia x 105 4 111 5 CLI: only clinically important organisms listed in the original paper reported' means that organisms in this category were presented in results despite not being the target of the study *Health Care Workers includes doctors, nurses, interns, and dental health workers ^Community includes general population, students and lecturers ~A taxonomic unit is each organism listed as a separate unit in the original report (e.g. S. aureus, MRSA, Yeasts, and Acinetobacter sp. are a taxonomic unit each) Figure 2 outlines the different study design characteristics observed in all studies.
Study design characteristic data plot against number of studies illustrating tool sensitivity, incubation temperature, swab type and setting. Four sampling techniques were used: sterile cotton swab moistened with sterile saline solution (n = 53 studies), Count-Tact applicator (n = 1), direct phone contact to media (n = 1) and 480CE e-swabs (n=1). In terms of the sensitivity tools used for microorganism identification, 61% of the studies used low sensitivity identification tools (n=34), 27% used medium sensitivity (n=15), 11% used high sensitivity (n=6) and one study used very high sensitivity identification tools (2%). 96% of studies used an incubation temperature of 37 o C (n=52), two studies did not use incubation methods to culture isolates obtained from swab samples of mobile phones. Three studies used identification tools that did not include the spot test and biochemical tests;
VITEK 2 system (n=1), RT-qPCR, KHRV kits, KHPNOV kits and MWS kits (n=1), and Count-Tact plates, and Candida-Select (n=1).
A total of 37 studies performed antibiotic sensitivity tests; more commonly the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method.
When studies showed a comparison of community and health care settings, we split them into two rows, hence the jump to 65 population groups in Table 2 . A larger proportion of studies in this review conducted sampling in health care settings, compared to community settings.
The number of samples taken, isolates and other parameters are shown in Table 2 .
Statistical tests were not performed to compare the differences between settings, because of the differences in aims, methodology, and results presented. It is, however, appropriate to compare the percentage of contaminated phones, which was 68% both in health care and community settings. Both for community and for health care settings, the microorganisms that were isolated with highest proportion, relative to swabs taken and methodologies utilized, were CoNS and Staphylococcus aureus. These two bacteria were also the most frequent relative to number of studies (Table 3 ).
In the community, two other organisms were detected with a frequency greater than 5% . It is, therefore, assumed that Candida species are likely to be more commonly detected on mobile phones than is reported here.
In the health care setting, only one other taxonomic unit is present at a rate higher than 5% of isolates relative to swabs: or Methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) (316 isolates from 5895 swabs). Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance were not tested in all publications, so it is assumed that this value is under-reported.
In terms of prevalence in relation to studies, we have highlighted the species or taxonomic units that were present in more than a quarter of the studies from each population target
This review has provided a comprehensive, worldwide analysis of publications that explored the presence of microorganisms on mobile phones. The average contamination rate of mobile phones, as calculated here, is 68%. It is important to note that this is likely an under- The results from this review indicate, nonetheless, that mobile phones from 24 different countries around the world harbour a diverse range of microorganisms, including several with antibiotic resistance. Considering these studies span back to 2006, it is surprising that minimal effort has been directed to developing guidelines to better manage the specific risk posed by mobile phones, in particular in health care settings. While sporadic health care standards for infection prevention and control in the use of mobile phones exist [76] , to the best of our knowledge the great majority of hospitals and clinics across the world have nonexistent or limited guidelines in place as well as limited training in decontaminating mobile phones. It is also important to note that patients coming in and out the health care settings also utilise their mobile phones and no guidelines are in place to address or prevent such impacts in hospitals infections. Hospital acquired microbes on patient's mobile phone could ultimately provide a pathway for infection spread to the wider community.
It was not till the rapid spread of COVID19 that the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) introduced guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting fomites such as mobile phones (CDC Website). In the other hand, numerous past and new guidelines were detailing the core practises for hand-hygiene were published and implemented [77] [78] [79] .
Further research concerning effective and efficient disinfection and sterilisation methods needs to be explored in order to prevent these devices acting as 'Trojan horses' (a term proposed by Goldblatt et al., 2007 [20] ) and bypassing hand-washing practises.
Horses' should be commenced as numerous health care studies have identified multi-drug resistant microorganisms when compared to community studies. Research investigating the presence and transmission of drug resistant microbes will provide insight into whether mobile devices enable and aid their development and spread.
There is a diverse range of bacterial species that are frequently identified and isolated from mobile phones in both the health care and community settings. However, when compared to bacterial species, the range of fungi and viruses reported was not as extensive, which we believe is a consequence of researchers not looking for them, rather than them not being present. Of note, our research team has been investigating the presence of viral genomes on the surface of mobile phones with findings including human and animal viruses (manuscript in preparation).
When comparing the microbiome profiles between the community and health care settings, some microorganisms appeared more frequently in health care settings. One example is We restrained from making too many comparisons and any statistical analyses since aims and methodologies were very different between studies, but we invite readers to look closely at the data provided as an appendix.
Mobile phones are touched on average 3 hours per day [80] . Furthermore, a 2016 study [81] stated that users can touch their phones up to 2617 times per day.
This poses a health concern to the wider community as this review has shown that mobile phones are contaminated by a plethora of microorganisms including bacteria and viruses.
The authors, strongly suggest that national public health authorities actively advise worldwide governments and communities to implement measures for all users to disinfect mobile phones. The CDC has initiated this with a focus on COVID19 bit it needs to be presented more broadly to cover any pathogenic organisms. This should be coupled Fundamentally, mobile phones harbour a diverse range of species of microorganisms including antibiotic-resistant organisms which pose a risk to human health, both in the health care system and the broader community. We believe that mobile phones are causing a large and largely unacknowledged impact in health care, community safety, with resulting unnecessary economic losses.
In view of the results synthesized and elicited by our review, we propose that mobile phones should be tested in order to identify and validate if pathogenic microbes responsible for outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics such as the current COVID-19 pandemic are present on those fomites.
We hypothesise that the currently spreading novel coronavirus COVID-19 is present on mobile phones (and other devices and other fomites) owned by humans positive to the virus.
Unlike hands, these devices are not regularly washed, and since they are neglected from a biosecurity perspective, they can act as Trojan horses and propagate undesirable invisible pathogens including viruses such as the flu and SARS-CoV-2. It is hoped that this paper will raise awareness to authorities and the scientific community alike to consider this hypothesis seriously, and to develop and implement protocols to assist in mitigating the risk of spreading microbes, such as viruses, in both healthcare, passenger air/sea travels, and the community at large.
Our strong recommendation is that phones should be decontaminated/disinfected daily, particularly in health care systems. The regular decontamination must be based around interventions that are proven efficient and gentle enough to not erode the phone screen's protective surface. Interestingly, the CDC has just recently published information regarding cleaning and disinfecting high touch surfaces (including mobile phones) at home when someone is sick. We salute this initial steps of public awareness of such fomites but as trojan horses contaminated platforms, such awareness need to become a global decontamination campaign complementing handwashing. While the CDC advises at home sick individuals to follow manufacturer's instructions, they also advise, in case of no guidance, to use alcoholbased wipes containing at least 70% alcohol [82] . Of note, a certain amount of ultra-violet based technology devices are marketed but their affirmative efficacy need to be tested regarding their microbicidal capacity.
These decontamination operations must be implemented in the community, in key servicing industries, by food handlers and individuals serving in buffets, kindergarten, age-cares, cruises, airline/airport (biosecurity measures needed), hospitals, dentists and the overall community during an epidemic or pandemic like the current COVID-19 pandemic.
[ 12 6 76 10 2 62 2 4 14 48 57 27 59 417 100 13 8 5 5 51 102 4 6 9 13 7 7 22 5 7 18 16 31 8 3 2 7 16 1 43 39 present(29) present (10) 98 15 8 31 present (22) 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 present present 2 1 7 37 present 1 1
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
I have no conflict of interest with respect to this study
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
There were no external funds required for my participation as an author of this study, other than my primary employer, Bond University, paying my salary. This has been acknowledged appropriately at the time of submitting this paper Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Print name but each author must sign) Professor Peter Jones
GSMA The Mobile Economy
Yellow Social Media Report 2018 -Consumers
Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States
Microbiology and Infection Control for Health Professionals/ Gary Lee
Fomite-mediated transmission as a sufficient pathway: a comparative analysis across three viral pathogens
The burden of healthcareassociated infection in Australian hospitals: A systematic review of the literature
Health Care-Associated Infections Among Critically Ill Children in the US
Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective
Translating technology into patient care: Smartphone applications in pediatric health care
The feasibility of using 'bring your own device' (BYOD) technology for electronic data capture in multicentre medical audit and research
Doctors' use of mobile devices in the clinical setting: a mixed methods study
Use of Cellular Telephones and Transmission of Pathogens by Medical Staff in New York and Israel
The potential role of mobile phones in the spread of bacterial infections
Isolation and identification of microbes associated with mobile phones in Dammam in eastern Saudi Arabia
Surface of Mobile Phone: As a Carrier of Pathogenic Bacteria
Mobile phones of health care workers are potential vectors of nosocomial agents
Cellphones: A Modern Stayhouse For Bacterial Pathogens
Cell phones of healthcare providers as fomites harbouring potential pathogenic microorganisms
Bacterial contamination and antibiogram of isolates from health care workers' fomites at Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital
Mobile phones and nosocomial infections
Potential of Mobile Phones to Serve as a Reservoir in Spread of Nosocomial Pathogens
The Importance of Mobile Phones in the Possible Transmission of Bacterial Infections in the Community
Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health professionals in Eastern Ethiopia: antimicrobial susceptibility and associated factors
Is your phone bugged? The incidence of bacteria known to cause nosocomial infection on healthcare workers' mobile phones.
Bacterial Isolates from Cell Phones and Hands of Health Care Workers: A Cross Sectional Study in Pediatric Wards at Black Lion Hospital
Bacterial 'Cell'Phones: Do cell phones carry potential pathogens?
Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health care workers
Mobile (Cellular) Phones Contamination with Nosocomial Pathogens in Intensive Care Units
Mobile Phones as a Potential Vehicle of Infection in a Hospital Setting
Isolation, Identification and Antibacterial Susceptibility of Staphylococcus spp
Bacterial Contamination of Anaesthetists Hands, Personal Mobile Phones and Wrist Watches Used During Theatre Sessions
Isolation and molecular characterization of some pathogenic mobile phone bacteria
Microbiological contamination of mobile phones of clinicians in intensive care units and neonatal care units in public hospitals in Kuwait
Mobile phones as fomites in microbial dissemination
Aerobic bacterial isolates from mobiles of health care workers in a tertiary care hospital of North Kerala
Cellphones as reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens
The role of mobile phones in the spread of bacteria associated with nosocomial infections
Mobile Phone: A Possible Vector of Bacterial Transmission in Hospital Setting
Typing of Staphylococcus aureus from mobile phones and clinical samples
The Microbial Colonisation of
Mobile Phone Used by Healthcare Staffs
Pathogen Carrying capacity of Mobile Phones of Health Workers in a Teaching Hospital
Mobile phones: Reservoirs for the transmission of nosocomial pathogens
Doctor, what you carry is every patient′s worry?
Contamination of healthcare workers' mobile phones by epidemic viruses
Cell Phones-Homes for Microbes
Use of mobile phones by medical staff at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Barbados: evidence for both benefit and harm
Cell Phones-Homes for Microbes
Microbial contamination of mobile phones in a health care setting in
Bacterial Contamination and Resistance to Commonly Used Antimicrobials of Healthcare Workers' Mobile Phones in Teaching Hospitals
Mobile phone as potential reservoirs of bacterial pathogens
Potential role of cellphones in hospital acquired infections
Mobile phone hygiene: potential risks posed by use in the clinics of an Indian dental school
Mobile phones and computer keyboards: unlikely reservoirs of multidrug-resistant organisms in the tertiary intensive care unit
Bacterial Contamination of Mobile Phones: When Your Mobile Phone Could Transmit More Than Just a Call
A Study of Microbial Flora and MRSA Harboured by Mobile Phones of Health Care Personnel
Nosocomial Hazards of Doctor`s Mobile Phones in Hospitals
Role of Mobile Phone in Spreading Hospital Acquired Infection: A Study in Different Group of Health Care Workers
Are we aware how contaminated our mobile phones with nosocomial pathogens?
Cellular Telephone as reservoir of Bacterial contamination: Myth or Fact
Bacterial contamination of cell phones of medical students at King Abdulaziz University
Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance and Prescribing Programme (HARP)
Use of alcoholbased hand sanitizers as a risk factor for norovirus outbreaks in long-term care facilities in northern New England
The hygienic efficacy of different hand-drying methods: a review of the evidence
A comparison of hand washing techniques to remove Escherichia coli and caliciviruses under natural or artificial fingernails
Cross-Platform Future in Focus
Putting a Finger on Our Phone Obsession Mobile touches: a study on how humans use technology
Cleaning And Disinfecting Your Home 2020
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
No conflicts of interest to declare.
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Print name but each author must sign)
Article Title: Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping Review Author name: Alexandra Bannach-Brown
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
There were no competing interests for this research
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Print name but each author must sign) Lotti Tajouri
Article Title: Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping ReviewAuthor name: Lotti Tajouri
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
No conflict of interest
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Print name but each author must sign)
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Matthew Olsen but each author must sign)
Article Title: Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping ReviewAuthor name:
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
No conflict of interest
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Signature (a scanned signature is acceptable, Rashed Alghafri but each author must sign)
Article Title: Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping ReviewAuthor name: Rashed Alghafri
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease requires that all authors sign a declaration of conflicting interests. If you have nothing to declare in any of these categories then this should be stated.
A conflicting interest exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient's welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors when they have financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
No competing interests.
All sources of funding should also be acknowledged and you should declare any involvement of study sponsors in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, this should be stated.