Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29375742›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2018

Bacterial presence on flexible endoscopes vs time since disinfection.

Katlin I Mallette, Peter Pieroni, Sonny S Dhalla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katlin I MalletteMax Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 3P5, Canada.
Peter PieroniDiagnostic Services of Manitoba, Westman Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, Brandon Regional Health Centre, Brandon, Manitoba R7A 7H8, Canada.
Sonny S DhallaMax Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 3P5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo correlate the length of endoscope hang time and number of bacteria cultured prior to use.

methodsProspectively, we cultured specimens from 19 gastroscopes, 24 colonoscopes and 5 side viewing duodenoscopes during the period of 2011 to 2015. A total of 164 results had complete data denoting date of cleansing, number of days stored and culture results. All scopes underwent initial cleaning in the endoscopy suite utilizing tap water, and then manually cleaned and flushed. High level disinfection was achieved with a Medivator

resultsAll culture results were within the acceptable range (less than 200 cfu/mL). One colonoscope cultured 80 cfu/mL after hanging for 1 d, which was the highest count. ERCP scopes cultured at most 10 cfu, this occurred after 2 and 7 d, and gastroscopes cultured 50 cfu/mL at most, at 1 d. Most cultures were negative for growth, irrespective of the length of hang time. Furthermore, all scopes, with the exception of one colonoscope which had two positive cultures (each of 10 cfu/mL), had at most one positive culture. There was no significant difference in the number of bacteria cultured after 1 d compared to 7 d when all scopes were combined (day 2:

conclusionThere is no correlation between hang time and bacterial load. Endoscopes do not need to be reprocessed if reused within a period of 7 d.

Indexed as

BacteriaColonoscopyEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopyGastroscopyHang timeProcessing

Identifiers

PMID29375742
PMCPMC5769004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.