ArticleChronic respiratory disease2017
Cleaning and infection control of airway clearance devices used by CF patients.
Article in Chronic respiratory disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial contamination of medicines, medical devices, cosmetics, child and personal care products: a comprehensive review of secondary contamination risks in home-use settings.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Design and initial testing of a novel disposable oscillating positive expiratory pressure device.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Assessment of the microbial load of airway clearance devices used by a cohort of children with cystic fibrosis.Infection prevention in practice · 2021Article
- A short-term evaluation of a prototype disposable Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure (OPEP) device in a cohort of children with cystic fibrosis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of different cleaning methods for feline inhalation chambers after bacterial contamination.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Nebuliser hygiene in cystic fibrosis: evidence-based recommendations.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients includes use of respiratory devices. Contamination of airway clearance devices has not been adequately explored. We aimed to determine whether airway clearance devices are contaminated after use and whether cleaning guidelines for nebulizers are as effective for airway clearance devices. Patients brought their airway clearance devices to the clinic. Swabs from the devices were taken before and after cleaning and were cultured for bacterial counts. Total colony-forming units (CFU) was determined, and predominant colonies were identified using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry technology. Thirty devices were collected from 23 patients. Most of the devices (28/30) were contaminated when brought to the clinic. Complete bacterial eradication was achieved in 15 (50%) samples and partial eradication in 9 (30%). The cleaning was totally ineffective in four samples. Median CFU decreased significantly from 1250 (IQR 25-75% 175-10.000) to 0 (IQR 25-75% 0-700) before and after cleaning ( p < 0.0001). The predominant organisms were identified in five samples only, and there was no concordance with sputum culture results. Airway clearance devices are contaminated after use, and appropriate cleaning can reduce contamination. The effect on disease progression in CF patients is unclear. There is a need for infection prevention and control guidelines for the growing number of respiratory devices.
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.