ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Efficacy of high-level disinfection of endoscopes contaminated with Streptococcus equi subspecies equi with 2 different disinfectants.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the disinfection efficacy of automated flexible endoscope reprocessors for flexible nasopharyngoscopy: comparison of different disinfectants.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Efficacy of high-level disinfection of endoscopes contaminated with Streptococcus equi subspecies equi with 2 different disinfectants.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundPrevention of spread of Streptococcus equi subspecies equi (S. equi) after an outbreak is best accomplished by endoscopic lavage of the guttural pouch, with samples tested by culture and real time, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Disinfection of endoscopes must eliminate bacteria and DNA to avoid false diagnosis of carrier horses of S. equi. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesCompare failure rates of disinfection of endoscopes contaminated with S. equi using 2 disinfectants (accelerated hydrogen peroxide [AHP] or ortho-phthalaldehyde [OPA]). The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the AHP and OPA products (based on culture and qPCR results) after disinfection.
methodsEndoscopes contaminated with S. equi were disinfected using AHP, OPA or water (control). Samples were collected before and after disinfection and submitted for detection of S. equi by culture and qPCR. Using a multivariable logistic regression model-adjusted probability, with endoscope and day as controlled variables, the probability of an endoscope being qPCR-positive was determined.
resultsAfter disinfection, all endoscopes were culture-negative (0%). However, the raw unadjusted qPCR data were positive for 33% AHP, 73% OPA, and 71% control samples. The model-adjusted probability of being qPCR-positive after AHP disinfection was lower (0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03-0.64) compared to OPA (0.81; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06), and control (0.72; 95% CI, 0.41-1.04). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Disinfection using the AHP product resulted in significantly lower probability of endoscopes being qPCR-positive compared to the OPA product and control.
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.