ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2025
Evaluating the efficacy of reprocessing contaminated single use devices for re-use in intensive care unit in Ethiopia.
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. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle use devices (SUDs) are designed for single use. However, in low-income countries, they are often reprocessed and reused. Because these devices are intended for single use, no standardized protocol for reprocessing these devices currently exists. We developed a protocol for reprocessing SUDs in low-income settings and assessed the efficacy of this protocol in eliminating bacterial burden from a subset of used respiratory SUDs.
methodsReprocessing of these devices was conducted in accordance with the National IPC reference manual with minor modifications. The surfaces of used SUDs were swabbed for bacterial culture before and after reprocessing. Serial dilutions of the swab samples were inoculated on plate count agar media and incubated. Bacterial burden was determined by colony forming unit (CFU) counts. Bacterial isolates were identified and characterized using standard microbiology techniques, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and modified carbapenem inactivation method in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines.
resultsPrior to reprocessing, twenty-seven (77.1%) of 35 devices tested were culture-positive for one or more bacterial species. The average bacterial count before reprocessing ranged from 1.98 × 10
conclusionThe reprocessing protocol employed in this study demonstrated absence of culturable bacteria from used SUDs. However, since the assessment was limited to surface swabbing of a small number of devices collected from a single facility and targeted only selected bacterial pathogens, the presence of other potential pathogens could not be completely ruled out. There is a need to assess the impact of the reprocessing procedure on the structural integrity and functionality of these devices. If SUDs are being reused, the efficacy of the decontamination method should be ascertained to mitigate the risk of transmission of pathogens between patients.
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.