ArticleBioMed research international2019
Comparative Study of Microbiological Monitoring Results from Three Types of Sampling Methods after Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomimetic Mustard Seed-Inspired Brush-Free Alternative for Effective Endoscope Channel Cleaning and Decontamination.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validity of the efficacy of the spray flushing cleaning method in flexible endoscope reprocessing.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare the effects of three sampling methods on the microbiological monitoring results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes, providing scientific basis for improving the monitoring quality of gastrointestinal endoscope cleaning and disinfection.
methodGastrointestinal endoscopes after reprocessing were selected randomly at the gastrointestinal endoscopy center of a tertiary hospital in Shanghai from October 2018 to February 2019. The endoscopes selected were all sampled in three different methods under continuous sampling and intermittent sampling respectively. Methods used includes, the biopsy channel group (Group A), the entire channel group (Group B), and the disc brush group (Group C). Then the colony forming units (CFU/piece) were counted in the laboratory.
resultsA total of 12 endoscopes were sampled by using continuous sampling approach, in which the detection rate of bacteria in disc brush group (33.3%) and entire channel group (33.3%) was higher than biopsy channel group (8.3%). Among the 12 endoscopes sampled with intermittent approach, the detection rate of bacteria from high to low was the disc brush group (50%), the entire channel group (41.7%), and the biopsy channel group (8.3%).
conclusionDifferent sampling methods will lead to the difference of microbiological culture results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscope, indicating that the improved sampling method is beneficial to objectively reflect the endoscope cleaning and disinfection effect, and improve the monitoring quality of endoscope disinfection.
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.