ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2022
Cleaning of in-hospital flexible endoscopes: Limitations and challenges.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Endoscope Reprocessor Using Ozonated Water Jets.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Ensuring patient safety during cystocopy: risk assessment of device reprocessing through healthcare failure mode and effects analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Effects of disposable pull-through brush types for reprocessing of flexible endoscopes in clinical environment.Infection prevention in practice · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto analyze the cleaning process of gastroscopes, colonoscopes and duodenoscopes in eight in-hospital health services.
methoda cross-sectional study conducted with 22 endoscopes (eight gastroscopes, eight colonoscopes and six duodenoscopes), and microbiological analysis of 60 samples of air/water channels (all endoscopes) and elevator (duodenoscopes), in addition to protein testing. Descriptive statistics with calculation of frequencies and central tendency measures was used in data analysis.
resultsthe processing of 22 endoscopes was monitored with microbiological analysis for 60 channels. In the pre-cleaning procedure, in 82.3% (14/17) of the devices, gauze was used in cleaning the insertion tube. Incomplete immersion of the endoscope in detergent solution occurred in 72.3% (17/22) of the cases, and in 63.6% (14/22) there was no standardization of filling-in of the channels. Friction of the biopsy channel was not performed in 13.6% (3/22) of the devices. In the microbiological analysis, 25% (7/32) of the samples from the stored endoscopes were positive for microbial growth (from 2x101 to 9.5x104 CFU/mL), while after processing, contamination was 32% (9/28). Protein residues in the elevator channel were detected in 33% of duodenoscopes.
conclusionthe results indicate important gaps in the stages of pre-cleaning and cleaning of endoscopes that, associated with presence of protein residues and growth of microorganisms of epidemiological importance, indicate limitations in safety of the processing procedures, which can compromise the disinfection processes and, consequently, their safe use among patients subjected to such tests.
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.