ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic epidemiology ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of endoscopic processing on the potential forInfection prevention in practice · 2026Article
- Efficacy of spray flushing in the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study aimed to assess the impact of INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS) application on delayed endoscope reprocessing through microbiological surveillance culture (MSC).
methodsA quasi-experimental, matched-comparison pilot study was conducted using gastrointestinal endoscopy. IFS was applied to the endoscopes after precleaning and before reprocessing the next day. An equal number of endoscopes, matched by endoscope type, were subjected to routine reprocessing. The MSC were subjected to high-level disinfection to detect any contamination. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test (categorical data) and Student t-test (continuous data).
resultsIn total, 150 MSCs were collected from 42 endoscopes. Positive MSCs were observed in 4.0% (4/75) of the sprayed group and 1.3% (1/75) of the control group (95% confidence interval, 30.34-0.31; p>0.05), all of which were contributed by colonoscopes. Colonoscope were more prone to positive MSC (mean difference in percentage, p<0.05). Mean spraying hours were not associated with detected growth (11.7% vs. 13.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to -5.27; p>0.05), with environmental and skin flora being the primary contaminants.
conclusionsIFS may be applied when delayed endoscope processing is necessary, but with caution when applied to colonoscopes. However, further research is warranted to verify the result.
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.