SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Single-use versus multiple-use accessories in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of economic evaluations.
Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- 3D-Printed vs Commercial Distal Caps for ESD: Multicenter Randomized Ex Vivo Noninferiority Trial (ENDOPRINT Trial).Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- A Survey of Single-Use and Reusable Surgical and Anaesthetic Devices in Victorian Public Health Services.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Cost of reusable gastrointestinal endoscopes to the NHS: findings from a micro-costing study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn many countries, single-use endoscopy accessories such as forceps have almost replaced their reusable counterparts. We reviewed the evidence on the broader economic cost and environmental impacts associated with single-use and multiple-use accessories for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes.
designSystematic review following the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 September 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included published economic evaluations on single-use and reusable GI endoscope accessories which were written in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and quality-assessed identified studies according to the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.
resultsSeven economic analyses were included: all were cost analyses. Three studies were from the USA, three from Europe and one from Korea. Patients in these studies underwent GI endoscopy (n=3), colonoscopy (n=2), gastroscopy (n=1) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n=1). All studies compared single-use with reusable accessories, of which six were forceps. Reprocessing and purchase costs were included in all studies, repair costs were included in three studies, and environmental impact was only considered in one study. Most studies (n=5) reported a higher cost per procedure associated with single-use accessories.
conclusionsApart from two studies, all studies indicated that the cost per procedure was greater using single-use accessories/forceps. Future economic evaluations of single versus reusable accessories/forceps should include costs and also consequences of health and beyond, especially environmental impact.
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.