ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Comparison of channel sampling methods and brush heads in surveillance culture of endoscope reprocessing: A propensity score matching and paired study.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of a Microbiological Surveillance Protocol in a Portuguese Tertiary Care Academic Endoscopy Unit.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopy-related infections have caused multiple outbreaks. The importance of surveillance culture is gradually recognized, but sampling techniques are not consistent in many guidelines. It is unclear whether the Flush-Brush-Flush sampling method (FBFSM) is more sensitive than the conventional flush sampling method (CFSM) and whether different sampling brushes have different effects.
methodsThe propensity score matching method was done with two matching ways, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching and full matching was used to analyze the surveillance culture data collected by FBFSM and CFSM. We fit a confounder-adjusted multiple generalized linear logistic regression model to estimate the marginal odds ratio (OR). A paired study was applied to compare the sampling effect of polyurethane foam (PU) head brush and polyamide (PA) head brush.
resultFrom 2016 to 2020, 316 reprocessed endoscope samples were collected from all 59 endoscopy centers in Tianjin. About 279 (88.3%) reprocessed endoscopes met the threshold of Chinese national standards (<20 CFU/Channel). The qualified rate of reprocessed endoscopes sampling by CFSM (91.8%) and FBFSM (81.6%) was statistically different (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR by full matching for FBFSM was 7.98 (95% confidence interval: 3.35-21.78). Forty one pairs of colonoscopes, after reprocessing from 27 centers, were tested by PA and PU brushes, and no difference was found in microbial recovery.
conclusionFBFSM was confirmed to be a more sensitive sampling technique. PU and PA brushes had no significant difference in sampling effect.
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.