ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2022
Performance of a new single-use bronchoscope versus a marketed single-use comparator: a bench study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Use Flexible Bronchoscopy: Advances in Technology and Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Single-use flexible bronchoscopy with the Boston ScientificJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Single-use vs. reusable flexible bronchoscopes for airway management and in critical care: a narrative review.Anaesthesia · 2025Review
- Technological advances in single-use or disposable bronchoscopy: an evaluation of the Innovative AmbuJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-use flexible bronchoscopes eliminate cross contamination from reusable bronchoscopes and are cost-effective in a number of clinical settings. The present bench study aimed to compare the performance of a new single-use bronchoscope (Boston Scientific EXALT Model B) to a marketed single-use comparator (Ambu aScope 4), each in slim, regular and large diameters.
methodsThree bronchoscopy tasks were performed: water suction and visualization, "mucus" mass (synthetic mucoid mixture) suctioned in 30 s, and "mucus" plug (thicker mucoid mixture) suction. Suction ability, task completion times, and subjective ratings of visualization and overall performance on a scale of one to 10 (best) were compared. All bronchoscopy tasks were completed by 15 physicians representing diversity in specialization including pulmonary, interventional pulmonary, critical care, anesthesia, and thoracic surgery. Each physician utilized the six bronchoscope versions with block randomization by bronchoscope and task.
resultsAspirated mean mass of "mucus" using EXALT Model B Regular was comparable to that for an aScope 4 Large (41.8 ± 8.3 g vs. 41.5 ± 5.7 g respectively, p = 0.914). In comparisons of scopes with the same outer diameter, the aspirated mean mass by weight of water and "mucus" was significantly greater for EXALT Model B than for aScope 4 (p < 0.001 for all three diameters). Mean ratings for visualization attributes were significantly better for EXALT Model B compared to aScope 4 (p-value range 0.001-0.029).
conclusionA new single-use bronchoscope provided strong suction capability and visualization compared to same-diameter marketed single-use comparators in a bench model simulation.
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.