Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30148992›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2019

Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video).

Monique T Barakat, Robert J Huang, Subhas Banerjee

Abstract readComparative StudyVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Effects of different drying temperatures and times on the drying efficiency in reprocessing of flexible endoscopes.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Disinfection of Endoscopy and Reusability of Accessories.Journal of digestive endoscopy · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Monique T BarakatDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Robert J HuangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Subhas BanerjeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

TRAINING GRANT IN ACADEMIC GASTROENTEROLOGYT32DK007056 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Natalie J. Torok · 1986 to 2026
$6.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsResidual fluid within endoscope working channels after reprocessing may promote growth of pathogens. Current reprocessing guidelines therefore recommend endoscope drying with administration of forced filtered air; however, the duration and modality of administered air are not specified. The new DriScope Aid device enables automated administration of filtered air at controlled pressure through all internal endoscope channels. We systematically compared, for the first time, the impact of manual drying and automated drying on retained working channel fluid and bioburden after reprocessing.

methodsWe assessed for residual working channel fluid after reprocessing and/or drying by using the SteriCam borescope. Drying was performed either manually (forced filtered air) or was automated (DriScope Aid) for either 5 or 10 minutes. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing was performed on working channel rinsates after drying, to evaluate for residual bioburden.

resultsSignificantly more fluid droplets were evident after manual drying (4.55 ± 6.14) than with automated device-facilitated drying for either 5 minutes (0.83 ± 1.29; P = .007) or 10 minutes (0 ± 0; P = .001). ATP bioluminescence values were higher for manual drying compared with automated drying at 48 hours (P = .001) and 72 hours (P = .014) after reprocessing.

conclusionsWe demonstrate significantly fewer water droplets and delayed ATP bioluminescence values within endoscope working channels after automated drying compared with manual drying. In particular, virtually no retained fluid was evident within endoscope working channels after automated drying for 10 minutes. These findings support recommendations for automation of as many reprocessing steps as possible. Automated drying may decrease the risk of transmission of infection related to endoscopy.

Indexed as

Equipment ContaminationAdenosine TriphosphateAutomationDisinfectionEndoscopes, GastrointestinalHumansLuminescent MeasurementsAdenosine Triphosphate

Identifiers

PMID30148992
PMCPMC6748329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.