ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2020
SpyGlass application for duodenoscope working channel inspection: Impact on the microbiological surveillance.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Management of common bile duct stones: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Impact of Borescope Inspections on Endoscope Repair Frequency and Costs.Biomedical instrumentation & technology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of a novel channel-cleaning ball brush for endoscope reprocessing: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Gastrointestinal endoscope contamination rates - elevators are not only to blame: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-ready duodenoscopes were designed with an assumed contamination rate of less than 0.4%; however, it has been reported that 5.4% of clinically used duodenoscopes remain contaminated with viable high-concern organisms despite following the manufacturer's instructions. Visual inspection of working channels has been proposed as a quality control measure for endoscope reprocessing. There are few studies related to this issue.
aimTo investigate the types, severity rate, and locations of abnormal visual inspection findings inside patient-ready duodenoscopes and their microbiological significance.
methodsVisual inspections of channels were performed in 19 patient-ready duodenoscopes using the SpyGlass visualization system in two endoscopy units of tertiary care teaching hospitals (Tri-Service General Hospital and National Taiwan University Hospital) in Taiwan. Inspections were recorded and reviewed to evaluate the presence of channel scratches, buckling, stains, debris, and fluids. These findings were used to analyze the relevance of microbiological surveillance.
resultsSeventy-two abnormal visual inspection findings in the 19 duodenoscopes were found, including scratches (
conclusionIn patient-ready duodenoscopes, scratches, buckling, stains, debris, and fluids inside the working channel are common, which increase the microbiological contamination susceptibility. The SpyGlass visualization system may be recommended to identify suboptimal reprocessing.
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.