ArticlePloS one2022
Analysis of bacterial contamination and the effectiveness of UV light-based reprocessing of everyday medical devices.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A non-inferiority trial comparing manual and automated high-level disinfection for reprocessing of transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound probes.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Inactivation of SARS CoV-2 on porous and nonporous surfaces by compact portable plasma reactor.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe reprocessing of daily used medical devices is often inadequate, making them a potential source of infection. In addition, there are usually no consistent and technically standardized procedures available for this purpose. Hence, the aim of this study is to analyze the bacterial contamination and the effectiveness of Ultraviolet light-based (UV light-based) reprocessing of daily used medical devices. MATERIAL AND
methodsSix different everyday medical devices (20 each; stethoscopes, tourniquets, bandage scissors, reflex hammers, tuning forks, and nystagmus glasses) were tested for bacterial contamination. All medical devices were then exposed to UV-C light for 25 seconds. Medical devices with a smooth surface were pre-cleaned with a water-based wipe. Contact samples were taken before and after reprocessing.
resultsImmediately after clinical use, 104 of 120 contact samples showed an average bacterial contamination of 44.8±64.3 colony forming units (CFU) (0-300 CFU), also including potentially pathogenic bacteria. Two further culture media were completely overgrown with potentially pathogenic bacteria. The stethoscopes were found to have the highest average contamination of 90±91.6 CFU. After reprocessing, 118 of 120 samples were sterile, resulting in an average residual contamination of 0.02±0.1 CFU in two samples, whereby only bacteria of the ordinary skin flora were found.
conclusionThe present study shows the potentially clinically relevant bacterial contamination of everyday used medical devices. The reprocessing method tested here using UV light appears to be a suitable method for disinfection, especially for objects that up to now have been difficult to disinfect or cannot be disinfected in a standardized manner.
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.