Turner 2004b.

Study characteristics
Methods	Double‐blind RCT conducted by Hill Top Research, Inc., Winnipeg, Canada, to assess the residual virucidal activity of a skin cleanser wipe and its effectiveness in preventing experimental rhinovirus colds. Participants in good health, aged 18 to 60 years, were recruited from Winnipeg and surrounding communities for participation. The residual activity of a skin cleanser wipe containing 4% pyroglutamic acid formulated with 0.1% benzalkonium chloride was tested. The negative control treatment was 62% ethanol. Benzalkonium chloride had been previously tested and was found to have no virucidal activity. Volunteers were randomly assigned to use the control preparation or the active preparation. The study material was applied to hands with a towelette. 15 minutes later, when the fingers were completely dry, the fingertips of each hand of the control participants and the volunteers in the active treatment group were contaminated with rhinovirus type 39. An additional volunteer in the active group was challenged with virus 1 hour after application, and the final group of volunteers was challenged 3 hours after application. Viral infection was assessed by culture of nasal lavage specimens and blood samples.
Participants	122 volunteers; 30 in control group, 92 in active group (30 tested after 15 minutes, 30 after 1 hour, 32 after 2 hours)
Interventions	Use of a skin cleanser wipe containing 4% pyroglutamic acid formulated with 0.1% benzalkonium chloride versus skin cleanser wipe containing ethanol
Outcomes	Laboratory: yes Effectiveness: rhinovirus type 39 infection Safety: N/A
Notes	Risk of bias: unclear (no description of randomisation process, concealment or allocation)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"randomised" Sequence generation not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"double blind", but no description given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"double blind", but no description given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All accounted for (short study).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Poorly reported