ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
Prospective comparative study between the effect of CIDEX
Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the disinfection efficacy of automated flexible endoscope reprocessors for flexible nasopharyngoscopy: comparison of different disinfectants.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Illumination matters part IV: blackout and whiteout in flexible ureteroscopy - first report on a phenomenon observed by PEARLS.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2022Review
- How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods.BJU international · 2021Review
- Safety and structural integrity of N95/PFF2 respirators decontamination.American journal of infection control · 2021Article
- Prospective analysis of cultures from the Furlow insertion tool: a possible etiology for penile prosthesis infections.International journal of impotence research · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5-3.5 cm).BMC urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the effect of chemical disinfection (CIDEX
methodsOver 11-month period, all flexible ureteroscopic procedures that fulfill the inclusion criteria were done by two brand new flexible ureteroscopes and were prospectively evaluated. Intraoperative data included total operative time, laser power and duration, stone criteria and subjective evaluation of the procedure as well as visibility and maneuverability scores were reported. The end point of the study was when the scope was deemed by the surgeon as unable to perform the procedure; when leak test is positive.
resultsA total of 88 patients were randomized either for the first flexible ureteroscope disinfected using Cidex
conclusionsThe durability and longevity of the DFU is strongly related to the sterilization method. Our findings suggest that CIDEX
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.