ReviewAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2024
Ultrasound transducer disinfection for percutaneous procedures: A review of the evidence supporting guideline recommendations.
Review in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction/Purpose: There are varying international recommendations regarding the minimum level of disinfection required for ultrasound transducers used in percutaneous procedures. While some guidelines recommend high-level disinfection (HLD), others question the additional benefit this delivers over low-level disinfection (LLD). Methods: This narrative review identifies current guidelines and evaluates the evidence used to support disinfection recommendations for ultrasound transducers used in percutaneous procedures. Thirteen guidelines were identified using a search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google from 1st January 2013 to 31st January 2024. Results: No guidelines were supported by high-quality evidence, instead, guidelines relied upon: expert opinion through the application of national standards and infection control principles; consideration of recommendations from other published guidelines; and the incidence of infection from retrospective studies. Guidelines were uniformly supportive of using ultrasound transducer covers and sterile ultrasound gel during ultrasound-guided percutaneous procedures. However, the minimum recommended disinfection level was varied with seven guidelines recommending HLD, four LLD and two not specifying a level. Spaulding's classification was commonly used to support disinfection recommendations, however, the resultant wide variation in classification and subsequent recommendations suggest that its utility in accurately determining the minimum level of disinfection in this specific context is low. Conclusion: Without high-level evidence, using a risk-based assessment will likely remain fundamental to future guideline recommendations in determining the minimum disinfection level for an ultrasound transducer used in percutaneous procedures. This risk assessment must include the highest level of evidence available in addition to acknowledging the contribution of all steps taken to prevent infection during ultrasound-guided percutaneous procedures.
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.