ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2020
Turbulent fluid flow is a novel closed-system sample extraction method for flexible endoscope channels of various inner diameters.
Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Dynamic Culture System of biofilm-forming Bifidobacterium Adolescentis BL-8: from System establishment, Formation Mechanisms Analysis To Application in freeze-dried Probiotic Powder.Current microbiology · 2025Article
- Novel technology for automated cleaning of flexible endoscopes.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Comparison of Sampling Methods for Detecting Protein in Gastrointestinal Endoscopes.Biomedical instrumentation & technology · 2024Article
- A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
overviewEffective sample extraction from endoscope channels is crucial for monitoring manual cleaning adequacy as well as for ensuring optimal sensitivity for culture after disinfection. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Turbulent Fluid Flow (TFF) to Flush (F) or Flush-Brush-Flush (FBF) methods. MATERIALS &
methodsPseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis in artificial test soil-2015 (ATS2015) were used as bacterial markers while protein and carbohydrate were the organic markers for biofilm formed inside 3.2-mm and 1.37-mm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) channels. TFF was generated using compressed air and sterile water to provide friction for sample extraction. Extraction for biofilm coated PTFE channels as well as for colonoscope channels perfused with ATS2015 containing 10
resultsThe extraction ratio for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis from biofilm extracted by TFF compared to the positive control was significantly better than F for 1.37-mm channels (≥0.94 for both bacteria by TFF versus 0.69 to 0.72 by F for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis, respectively) but not significantly different between TFF and FBF for 3.2-mm channels. F was also ineffective for extraction of protein and carbohydrate from 1.37-mm channels. Extraction efficacy by TFF from inoculated colonoscope channels was >98% for all test markers.
conclusionsThe novel TFF method for extraction of samples from colonoscope channels is a more effective method than the existing FBF and F methods.
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.