ArticleInfection prevention in practice2025
Effects of disposable pull-through brush types for reprocessing of flexible endoscopes in clinical environment.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating the effectiveness of different brush types used during the cleaning and reprocessing of flexible endoscopes is challenging. This study compared the yield of microbial growth from endoscopes that had been used clinically before and after cleaning with different brush types (bristle, squeegee, and hybrid). Endoscopes used to perform a total of 91 medical procedures on 82 patients were included. Quantitative bacterial cultures yielded no statistical differences between the different brushes used. Colonoscopes and gastroscopes surveyed after rigorous cleaning steps resulted in a drop in colony counts between pre- and post-cleaning from 1.45E+8 (±5.21E+07) to 2.5 (±0.13) individual colonies suggesting that the overall cleaning process was effective regardless of the brush type used.
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.