ArticleFrontiers in medicine2017
Sterile Reverse Osmosis Water Combined with Friction Are Optimal for Channel and Lever Cavity Sample Collection of Flexible Duodenoscopes.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Review of How Endoscope Channel Biofilm Differs from Hydrated and Dry Surface Biofilm and Its Implications.Endoscopy international open · 2026Review
- Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Journal of infection prevention · 2023Review
- A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021Review
- Turbulent fluid flow is a novel closed-system sample extraction method for flexible endoscope channels of various inner diameters.Journal of microbiological methods · 2020Article
- Evaluation of an overnight non-culture test for detection of viable Gram-negative bacteria in endoscope channels.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Comparison of channel sampling methods and brush heads in surveillance culture of endoscope reprocessing: A propensity score matching and paired study.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSimulated-use buildup biofilm (BBF) model was used to assess various extraction fluids and friction methods to determine the optimal sample collection method for polytetrafluorethylene channels. In addition, simulated-use testing was performed for the channel and lever cavity of duodenoscopes. MATERIALS AND
methodsBBF was formed in polytetrafluorethylene channels using
resultsDespite variability in the bacterial CFU in the BBF model, none of the extraction fluids tested were significantly better than RO. Borescope examination showed far less residual material when friction was part of the extraction protocol. The RO for flush-brush-flush (FBF) extraction provided significantly better recovery of DISCUSSION AND
conclusionWe recommend RO with friction for FBF extraction of the channel and lever cavity of duodenoscopes. Neutralizer and sample concentration optimize recovery of viable bacteria on culture.
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.