Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38883953›Full record

ReviewAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2024

A Day in the Life of a Surgical Instrument: The Cycle of Sterilization.

Robert E George, Caroline C Bay, Ellen C Shaffrey, Peter J Wirth, Venkat K Rao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Robert E GeorgeFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI.
Caroline C BayFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI.
Ellen C ShaffreyFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI.
Peter J WirthFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI.
Venkat K RaoFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgeons must be confident that the instruments they use do not pose risk of infection to patients due to bioburden or contamination. Despite this importance, surgeons are not necessarily aware of the steps required to ensure that an instrument has been properly sterilized, processed, and prepared for the next operation. At the end of an operation, instruments must be transported to the sterile processing unit. There, instruments are decontaminated before being sterilized by heat, chemical, or radiation-based methods. Following this, they are stored before being brought back into use. This review highlights the intricacies of the processing of surgical instruments at the conclusion of an operation so that they are ready for the next one.

Identifiers

PMID38883953
PMCPMC11175864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.