ArticlePloS one2023
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) sampling algorithm for monitoring the cleanliness of surgical instruments.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of decontamination methods for laparoscopic equipment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Reagentless Real-Time ATP Monitoring with New DNA Aptamers.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of soaking and drying methods for the disinfection of handwashing sinks in ICU.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely detection of cleaning failure is critical for quality assurance within Sterilising Service Units (SSUs). Rapid Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) testing provides a real time and quantitative indication of cellular contaminants, when used to measure surface or device cleanliness. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of an ATP algorithm and to whether it could be used as a routine quality assurance step, to monitor surgical instruments cleanliness in SSUs prior to sterilisation.
methodsCleanliness monitoring using rapid ATP testing was undertaken in the SSUs of four hospitals located in the western (Amazonia) region of Brazil. ATP testing was conducted (Clean Trace, 3M) on 163 surgical instruments, following manual cleaning. A sampling algorithm using a duplicate swab approach was applied to indicate surgical instruments as (i) very clean, (ii) clean, (iii) equivocal or (iv) fail, based around a 'clean' cut-off of 250 Relative Light Units (RLU) and a 'very clean' <100 RLU.
resultsThe four cleanliness categories were significantly differentiated (P≤0.001). The worst performing locations (hospitals A & C) had failure rates of 39.2% and 32.4%, respectively, and were distinctly different from hospitals B & D (P≤0.001). The best performing hospitals (B & D) had failure rates of 7.7% and 2.8%, respectively.
conclusionThe ATP testing algorithm provides a simple to use method within SSUs. The measurements are in real time, quantitative and useful for risk-based quality assurance monitoring, and the tool can be used for staff training. The four-tiered approach to the grading of surgical instrument cleanliness provides a nuanced approach for continuous quality improvement within SSU than does a simple pass/fail methodology.
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.