ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
A comparative study on the cleaning efficacy of a pulsed vacuum cleaning and disinfection device on rigid endoscopic instruments in a hospital setting.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Given the increasing demand for rapid and reliable instrument reprocessing to support surgical schedules and minimize infection risks, this study aims to explore the cleaning efficacy of a pulsed vacuum cleaning and disinfection device on rigid endoscopic instruments in a comparative hospital setting. Methods: A total of 800 rigid endoscopic instruments scheduled for post-operative cleaning in our hospital's sterilization supply room between July and December 2024 were included in the study. After pre-treatment, the instruments were divided into two groups, with 400 instruments in each group. The control group used a vacuum ultrasonic cleaner, while the observation group used a pulsed vacuum cleaning and disinfection device. The cleaning time, cleaning effect, protein residue detection, and instrument damage rate were compared between the two groups. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. Results: The cleaning time in the observation group was significantly shorter than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of visual inspection, magnifying light source, and ATP fluorescence comparison (P>0.05). The protein residue detection in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The instrument damage rate in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The pulsed vacuum device demonstrated significant cost savings, with a lower total cost ($15,984 vs. $21,832) and cost per qualified instrument ($40.26 vs. $55.98) over 400 cycles. Conclusion: The pulsed vacuum cleaning and disinfection device can effectively clean rigid endoscopic instruments and is worthy of clinical promotion as it enhances operational efficiency and upholds high standards of patient safety by ensuring instrument cleanliness.
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.