ArticleJournal of intensive care medicine2023
Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices.
Article in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Use Flexible Bronchoscopy: Advances in Technology and Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives of portable field endoscopy.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
- 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 Flexible Bronchoscope in Facilitating Endobronchial Valve Treatment in Severe Emphysema.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Differences in organizational impact, performance and quality related to the use of single- and/or reusable bronchoscopes in anesthesiology and resuscitation.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData regarding the risk of infection related to reusable bronchoscopes, the global drive toward disposable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in the use and production of single use or disposable bronchoscopes. An in-depth comparison of all available devices has not been published.
methodsA benchtop comparison of the Ambu
resultsThe Vathin single-use flexible bronchoscope had the biggest range of tip movement from flexion to extension with and without forceps. The Boston single-use flexible bronchoscope required the maximal thumb force but had the least reduction of tip movement with forceps. The Boston single-use flexible bronchoscope significantly outperformed all other scopes including the standard Pentax scope and was the only scope capable of suctioning pseudo-mucus around the forceps. Although there was no significant difference in preference in the overall group, females and those with smaller hand size preferred the Pentax and males the Broncoflex single-use flexible bronchoscope.
conclusionsCurrently available single-use flexible bronchoscopes differ in several factors other than scope sizes and monitor including suction, turning envelope, and handle size. Performance in the clinical setting will be key to their success.
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.