ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2025
Reprocessing status of flexible bronchoscopes in 202 intensive care units in Hubei province, China: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundUnstandardised reprocessing procedures for flexible endoscopes can lead to infection outbreaks and threaten the lives of ICU patients. Despite recent updates to technical specification, there was a paucity of studies on the current status of flexible endoscopic reprocessing, particularly concerning flexible bronchoscopes (FB). This study aimed to assess the current practices of reprocessing FBs in ICUs in Hubei Province, China.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing convenience sampling from October 11, 2024, to December 6, 2024, in the ICUs of 216 hospitals in Hubei Province, China. A self-developed questionnaire was distributed through an online survey platform to either the person in charge of the ICU or the frontline technicians. The information regarding the reprocessing of FBs was collected, including general characteristics, personnel and training, layout and facilities, reprocessing operations, and reprocessing quality monitoring.
resultsThe content validity index of the questionnaire was 0.94. There were 202 valid questionnaires collected with a validity rate of 93.52%, including 158 ICUs in tertiary hospitals and 44 in secondary and primary hospitals. The ICUs of tertiary hospitals were better than the ICUs of secondary and primary hospitals in terms of the number of FBs available, the number of dedicated technicians, the opportunity for training, the availability of some equipment and facilities (ultrasonic cleaners, whole tube irrigators, etc.), and some reprocessing operations (FB sterilisation method and storage cabinet sterilisation frequency) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThere were variations in FB reprocessing practices across ICUs in hospitals of all levels in Hubei, along with some common issues. Most ICUs were standardised in personnel training, operation, and recording, and ICUs in tertiary hospitals behaved better than in secondary and primary hospitals. However, there remained a need for improvement in the layout of the reprocessing environment, equipment configuration, and quality monitoring. Future research could apply implementation science to identify barriers and propose strategies to align practice with guidelines.
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.