Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37624938›Full record

ArticleBiomedical instrumentation & technology2023

Evaluating Aseptic Presentation of Different Medical Device Packaging Configurations.

Selena Qin, Ran Li, Yong Yin, Li Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical instrumentation & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Selena Qin
Ran Li
Yong Yin
Li Fang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Medical Device Regulation (MDR) of the European Union (EU) places greater emphasis on the usability of medical devices, with the goal of eliminating or reducing the risk of infection to patients. As this goal also is applicable to sterile packaging, ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11607-1:2019 introduced a usability evaluation requirement for aseptic presentation of terminally sterilized medical devices. In an effort to reduce contamination risks, this requirement focuses specifically on the sterile barrier system (SBS). However, research is limited on evaluating the usability of SBSs and their performance, from an aseptic presentation standpoint, in clinical settings. To address this research gap, we assessed 14 sterile medical devices with five different SBS configurations to elucidate how SBS configuration (type, size, and number of SBS layers) and user satisfaction levels affect usability. A total of 40 experienced clinical nurses participated in 280 individual trials (20 per SBS configuration), which were conducted in a simulated operating room. Ultraviolet fluorescent powder was used to simulate the contamination process and to evaluate the success or failure of the aseptic presentation. Pouch and tray configurations exhibited the best overall performance, while vent bags performed poorly and were considered less acceptable. Double SBS configurations outperformed single SBS configurations. The study highlighted the importance of appropriate SBS symbols to identify SBS layers, which is another patient safety-related requirement of the EU MDR. The current work also includes an analysis of the powder contamination method used in conducting the usability evaluation.

Indexed as

Evidence GapsProduct PackagingEuropean UnionHumansMedical Device LegislationPowdersPowders

Identifiers

PMID37624938
PMCPMC10512998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.