Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34949217›Full record

ReviewAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments.

Maarten Heuvelmans, Herman F Wunderink, Henny C van der Mei, Jan F Monkelbaan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maarten HeuvelmansDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.643, PO box 85500, 3508GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.Heuvelmans-12@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2381-7086
Herman F WunderinkDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.643, PO box 85500, 3508GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Henny C van der MeiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan F MonkelbaanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Duodenoscopy-associated infections occur worldwide despite strict adherence to reprocessing standards. The exact scope of the problem remains unknown because a standardized sampling protocol and uniform sampling techniques are lacking. The currently available multi-society protocol for microbial culturing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Society for Microbiology, published in 2018 is too laborious for broad clinical implementation. A more practical sampling protocol would result in increased accessibility and widespread implementation. This will aid to reduce the prevalence of duodenoscope contamination. To reduce the risk of duodenoscopy-associated pathogen transmission the FDA advised four supplemental reprocessing measures. These measures include double high-level disinfection, microbiological culturing and quarantine, ethylene oxide gas sterilization and liquid chemical sterilization. When the supplemental measures were advised in 2015 data evaluating their efficacy were sparse. Over the past five years data regarding the supplemental measures have become available that place the efficacy of the supplemental measures into context. As expected the advised supplemental measures have resulted in increased costs and reprocessing time. Unfortunately, it has also become clear that the efficacy of the supplemental measures falls short and that duodenoscope contamination remains a problem. There is a lot of research into new reprocessing methods and technical applications trying to solve the problem of duodenoscope contamination. Several promising developments such as single-use duodenoscopes, electrolyzed acidic water, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide plasma are already applied in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCross InfectionDisinfectionDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialDuodenoscopesEnterobacteriaceaeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsEquipment ContaminationEquipment ReuseHumansInfection ControlUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAnti-Bacterial AgentsEndoscopyInfectionMultidrug-resistant EnterobacteralesOutbreakReprocessing

Identifiers

PMID34949217
PMCPMC8697464
OpenAlexW4200396900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.