ArticleSAGE open medicine2023
Assessment of microbial bioburden on portable medical equipment in a hospital setting.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the efficacy of reprocessing contaminated single use devices for re-use in intensive care unit in Ethiopia.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Although routine disinfection of portable medical equipment is required in most hospitals, frontline staff may not be able to disinfect portable medical equipment at a rate that adequately maintains low bioburden on high-use equipment. This study quantified bioburden over an extended time period for two types of portable medical equipment, workstations on wheels and vitals machines, across three hospital wards. Methods: Bioburden was quantified via press plate samples taken from high touch surfaces on 10 workstations on wheels and 5 vitals machines on each of 3 medical surgical units. The samples were taken at three timepoints each day over a 4-week period, with random rotation of timepoints and portable medical equipment, such that frontline staff were not aware at which timepoint their portable medical equipment would be sampled. The mean bioburden from the different locations and portable medical equipment was estimated and compared with Bayesian multilevel negative binomial regression models. Results: Model estimated mean colony counts (95% credible interval) were 14.4 (7.7-26.7) for vitals machines and 29.2 (16.1-51.1) for workstations on wheels. For the workstations on wheel, colony counts were lower on the mouse, 0.22 (0.16-0.29), tray, 0.29 (0.22, 0.38), and keyboard, 0.43 (0.32-0.55), when compared to the arm, as assessed by incident rate ratios. Conclusions: Although routine disinfection is required, bioburden is still present across portable medical equipment on a variety of surfaces. The difference in bioburden levels among surfaces likely reflects differences in touch patterns for the different portable medical equipment and surfaces on the portable medical equipment. Although the association of portable medical equipment bioburden to healthcare-associated infection transmission was not assessed, this study provides evidence for the potential of portable medical equipment as a vector for healthcare-associated infection transmission despite hospital disinfection requirements.
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.