ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2017
Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental Impact of a Novel UV-C Disinfection Machine for Non-Channel Flexible Laryngoscopes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Disinfection of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde and 2% glutaraldehyde for disinfection of laryngoscopes: A prospective pilot study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe laryngoscope is a common piece of equipment used by anaesthesiologists. It has been identified as a potential source of cross infection. Although guidelines exist regarding appropriate disinfection practices, recent reviews suggest ineffectiveness of current methods of disinfection and poor compliance with the established protocols. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to study the current disinfection practices being followed by a cross section of anaesthesiologists.
methodsA simple questionnaire containing 13 questions was distributed amongst anaesthesiologists in an anaesthesia conference. Data were analysed with percentage analysis.
resultsOut of 250 delegates who attended the conference, 150 submitted the completed questionnaires. Residents constituted 41% and 46% were consultants. Eighteen (12%) used only tap water for cleaning and 132 (88%) used a chemical agent after rinsing with water. Out of 132, 76 (51%) used detergent/soap solution, 29 (19%) would wash and then soak in disinfectant or germicidal agents (glutaraldehyde, povidone iodine and chlorhexidine) and 18 (12%) would wipe the blade with an alcohol swab. With respect to disinfection of laryngoscope handles, 70% respondents said they used an alcohol swab, 18% did not use any method, 9% were not aware of the method being used, while 3% did not respond.
conclusionOur results indicate wide variation in methods of decontamination of laryngoscopes. Awareness regarding laryngoscope as a potential source of infection was high. We need to standardise and implement guidelines on a national level and make available resources which will help to improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.