Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109309›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2025

Novel water-based automated endoscope cleaning process vs conventional manual cleaning for reducing duodenoscope contamination.

Koen van der Ploeg, Juliëtte A Severin, Margreet C Vos, Nicole S Erler, Adriana J C Bulkmans, Marco Bruno, Bibi C G C Mason-Slingerland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. 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

7 authors.

Koen van der PloegDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3358-0382
Juliëtte A SeverinDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Margreet C VosDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Nicole S ErlerDepartment of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9370-6832
Adriana J C BulkmansQuality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs office Medical Technology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Marco BrunoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Bibi C G C Mason-SlingerlandDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Duodenoscope contamination remains a persistent problem, exposing patients to infection risks. Automation in reprocessing may limit human error, reduce workload, and increase uniformity and traceability. However, its effectiveness should be evaluated before implementation. This study assessed the impact of implementing a novel water-based automated endoscope cleaning process on duodenoscope contamination. Methods: This before-and-after intervention study compared duodenoscope cleaning methods. From January 2022 to December 2023, conventional manual cleaning was used. From January 2024 to June 2024, the AquaTYPHOON system (AT) replaced manual cleaning. Cultures from Pentax ED34-i10T2 patient-ready duodenoscopes were collected. The main outcome was the contamination rate with microorganisms of gut or oral origin (MGO). Secondary outcomes included contamination with solely gut bacteria. Non-inferiority of the AT was tested using a generalized estimating equation with a non-inferiority margin of 5%. Results: During the manual cleaning period, 333 duodenoscope cultures of eight duodenoscopes were collected; during the AT period, 100 cultures were collected. Pre-introduction of the AT, the contamination rate with MGO was 21.6%, which fell to 16% post-introduction (risk difference: -5.6%, upper bound 90% confidence interval [CI] 6.8%). For gut bacteria, the contamination rate decreased from 14.4% to 9% (risk difference: -5.4%, upper bound 90% CI 3.9%), indicating non-inferiority. Conclusions: AT reduced the contamination rate with MGO, but non-inferiority was not demonstrated. For gut bacteria, AT was non-inferior to manual cleaning. These results are promising. However, future studies should confirm these findings in larger samples and explore other advantages of using the AT in duodenoscope cleaning.

Indexed as

ERC topicsHygienePancreatobiliary (ERCP/PTCD)Quality and logistical aspectsQuality management

Identifiers

PMID40109309
PMCPMC11922170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.