text: Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen - Conservation Evidence
  Assessing the evidence
  About us
  Help
  Studies
  Actions
  Synopses
  CE Journal
  Action
  Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions
  Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen
  Overall effectiveness category No evidence found (no assessment)
  Number of studies: 0
  Share Tweet Icons/envelope Email
  View assessment score
  Hide assessment score
  How is the evidence assessed?
  Effectiveness
  not assessed
  Certainty
  not assessed
  Harms
  not assessed
  Calculating overall effectiveness category
  Expert assessment panel
  Background information and definitions
  Decontaminating clothing and equipment after entering caves may reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans by humans.
  We found no studies evaluating the effects of decontaminating equipment when moving between caves on the spread of the white-nose syndrome fungus between bat populations. One study examined the effectiveness of different treatments to kill the white-nose syndrome fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans on clothing and materials used by cavers. Cleaning mud and sediment from clothing followed by treatment with commercially available disinfectants (e.g. household bleach) successfully killed the fungus, as did soaking clothing in water above 50˚C for at least 20 minutes (Shelley et al. 2013).
  Shelley V., Kaiser S., Shelley E., Williams T., Kramer M., Haman K., Keel K. & Barton H.A. (2013) Evaluation of strategies for the decontamination of equipment for Geomyces destructans, the causative agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS). Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 75, 1–10.
  Read more
  Read less
  Key messages
  We found no studies that evaluated the effects of decontaminating clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen on bat populations.
  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.
  About key messages
  Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.
  Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.
  Please cite as:
  Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  Where has this evidence come from?
  List of journals searched by synopsis
  All the journals searched for all synopses
  This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:
  Bat Conservation
  Related Actions
  Actions
  Effectiveness
  Studies
  Category
  Cull bats infected with white-nose syndrome
  Action Link No evidence found (no assessment) 0 Synopsis Link
  Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir
  Action Link No evidence found (no assessment) 0 Synopsis Link
  Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen
  Action Link No evidence found (no assessment) 0 Synopsis Link
  All related actions
  Bat Conservation - Published 2021
  Download PDF View PDF
  Update 2020
  All synopses About synopses Synopsis protocols Synopsis advisory board
  ×
  Download reference details
  This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.
  Please select your preferred method below.
  Text (full) Text (references only) RIS
  ×
  Submit additional evidence
  Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.
  Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.
  Fields with * are required.
  Name *
  Affiliation *
  Email *
  Message *
  Attach files You may submit up to three additional files
  File 1
  File 2
  File 3
  Verification Code
  ×
  Effectiveness
  An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).
  ×
  Harms
  An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).
  ×
  Certainty
  An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).
  ×
  Overall Effectiveness Category
  The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.
  What Works in Conservation
  What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.
  More about What Works in Conservation
  Download free PDF or purchase
  The Conservation Evidence Journal
  An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.
  Read the latest volume: Volume 19
  Go to the CE Journal
  Tweets by ConservEvidence
  Discover more on our blog
  Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.
  Go to the Conservation Evidence blog
  Who uses Conservation Evidence?
  Meet some of the evidence champions
  For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
  All Evidence Champions
  About our champions, why and how to become one:
  Become an Evidence Champion
  Conservation Evidence Department of Zoology University of Cambridge David Attenborough Building CB2 3QY
  © 2020 ConservationEvidence.com
  About Conservation Evidence
  FAQs
  Contact us
  Designed and maintained by: Modular Digital
  This website uses Cookies
  We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.