SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Comparative efficacy of decontamination methods for laparoscopic equipment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of manual cleaning, alkaline multi-enzyme immersion with ultrasonic cleaning, and automatic reprocessing machines in decontaminating laparoscopes through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI and Wanfang databases from inception to February 2025. Randomised controlled trials comparing different cleaning and disinfection methods for laparoscopes were included. The primary outcome was the qualified rate of decontamination, defined as meeting predetermined thresholds for each detection method (visual cleanliness, protein <6.4 μg/cm², ATP <200 RLU, negative occult blood). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics, with subgroup analyses by detection method and intervention type. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Eleven randomised controlled trials involving 4,661 cases were included. Meta-analysis showed that alkaline multi-enzyme immersion with ultrasonic cleaning improved qualified decontamination rates compared with manual cleaning alone when assessed by visual inspection (risk ratio [RR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13, P < 0.01) and occult blood test (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23, P < 0.05). The 7% improvement in first-pass cleaning qualification translates to potentially preventing contamination in approximately 70 additional instruments per 1,000 processed. Automatic reprocessing machines showed similar improvements (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, P < 0.05). Low heterogeneity (I² < 25%) was observed across most outcomes. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that combined cleaning methods provide modest but clinically meaningful improvements over manual cleaning alone, though certainty is limited by methodological constraints and geographic concentration of studies. Healthcare facilities should consider implementing enhanced protocols while weighing resource availability, training requirements, and local infection prevention priorities.
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.