ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Differences in organizational impact, performance and quality related to the use of single- and/or reusable bronchoscopes in anesthesiology and resuscitation.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of fibrobronchoscopy increased significantly for collecting airway microbiological samples and during percutaneous tracheostomies and difficult intubations. Reusable bronchoscopes pose risks of contamination and damage due to their fragile structure and difficulties of cleaning and sterilization; single-use bronchoscopes have been introduced, offering reliability in terms of vision, maneuverability, suctioning capacity, and sterility, reducing the risk of hospital-acquired infections and improving logistical management. Methods: The study analyzed healthcare workers' and management's perceptions of single-use bronchoscopes versus reusable ones. Among the main objectives were to evaluate the organizational impact, quality, and performance of bronchoscopes, while also analyzing opinions on device features, safety in infection prevention, and ease of use during training. Results: In this analysis 66% of clinicians rated optimal image quality, and 90% of respondents highly appreciated the "plug & play" feature of disposable endoscopes; also, 45% of clinicians noted no significant differences in aspiration performance. Healthcare professionals felt more exposed to infectious agents with reusable endoscopes, believing disposable endoscopes required less vigilance and monitoring. In training, 80% of doctors and 100% of nurses considered disposable endoscopes more suitable due to their greater ease of use. Finally, the Overall Satisfaction of all healthcare workers was 75%. Conclusion: The analysis of results demonstrated that the use of single-use bronchoscopes in anesthesia and resuscitation is highly comparable in terms of clinical effectiveness to reusable ones and that significant advantages in costs and organizational impact were highlighted, positively impacting the daily workflow of healthcare workers.
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.