ReviewGMS hygiene and infection control2025
Safety, cost and environmental impact of reprocessing high risk single-use medical devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in GMS hygiene and infection control, 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.
- The low data fidelity of human-based informatics in surgical instrument waste reduction: is it time for objective computer vision integration?BMC health services research · 2026Observational
- Safety, cost and environmental impact of reprocessing low and moderate risk single-use medical devices: a systematic review.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2026Review
- The carbon footprint of transperineal prostate biopsy.BJUI compass · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To estimate the safety, financial and environmental effects of reprocessing high risk SUMDs. Methods: Systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022365642) of primary trial and observational studies of human participants receiving reprocessed high risk SUMDs compared with first use of identical SUMDs. Reprocessing was defined as cleaning, disinfection, and sterilisation or related procedures, and function and safety testing. Items were sourced via database, grey literature and supplemental searching of English and German language sources. Included studies were quality appraised and primary outcomes (direct patient safety; indirect financial costs; environmental impacts) GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessed. Narrative synthesis and where feasible, meta-analysis were undertaken. Results: Ten studies (N=2,657 participants) examined two implantable (pacemaker, defibrillator) and three catheterisation (electrophysiology polyurethane, ablation and balloon) devices. Safety outcomes were available for both device types and cost outcomes were available for catheterisation devices. Except for one older study, there were no statistically significant differences in the odds of examined safety outcomes between new and once reprocessed SUMDs. Meta-analysis of catheterisation devices resulted in similar results (Infections: OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.37-1.20, Conclusion: We found no evidence of additional adverse safety outcomes for once reprocessed cardiac catheterisation or implantable cardiac SUMDs. However, our confidence that the same findings would be observed in future studies is very low. There was insufficient evidence to establish the cost-effectiveness or environmental impacts of reusing cardiac catheterisation or implantable SUMDs. High-quality randomised controlled trials, analyses of national device reprocessing surveillance systems, cost-effectiveness studies, and life cycle assessments are required in order to facilitate better comparison across devices and reprocessing contexts.
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.