Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41725791›Full record

ReviewGMS hygiene and infection control2026

Safety, cost and environmental impact of reprocessing low and moderate risk single-use medical devices: a systematic review.

Niamh McGrath, Catherine Waldron, Ailish Farragher, Áine Teahan, Leila Keshtkar, Julie Polisena, Francesco Tessarolo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Niamh McGrathEvidence Centre, Health Information and Evidence Directorate, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
Catherine WaldronEvidence Centre, Health Information and Evidence Directorate, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
Ailish FarragherEvidence Centre, Health Information and Evidence Directorate, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
Áine TeahanEvidence Centre, Health Information and Evidence Directorate, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
Leila KeshtkarEvidence Centre, Health Information and Evidence Directorate, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
Julie PolisenaHealth Technology Assessment Division, International Federation of Medical and Biomedical Engineering, Ottawa, Canada.
Francesco TessaroloDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Estimate the safety, financial and environmental impacts of reprocessing low and moderate risk single-use medical devices (SuMDs). Methods: Systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022365642) of primary studies of patients receiving reprocessed low and moderate risk SuMDs (non-critical and semi-critical medical devices a and b) versus first use of otherwise identical SuMDs. Items were sourced via database and supplemental searching. Results were reported by device risk class, included studies were quality appraised, and primary outcomes: direct patient safety; direct and indirect financial costs; environmental impacts, were Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed following narrative synthesis. Results: Ten studies examined 10 devices across three categories of risk class I devices: external fixator devices (n=3 studies), compression sleeves (n=2), and pulse oximeters (n=1) and three categories of risk class II devices: ophthalmic devices (n=1), surgical instruments for grasping and cutting (n=1) and endoscopic and laparoscopic devices (n=5 studies, 5 devices). There were no significant differences in the odds of primary safety outcomes across the two device types contributing data. The only study contributing primary financial impact data reported no statistically significant difference in savings for new versus reprocessed devices (p=0.340). Reprocessing reduced global warming (n=2 studies) and increased human health impacts (n=1) across the four device types contributing data. The certainty of safety and cost evidence was very low. Conclusions: Safety monitoring systems where SuMD reprocessing is permitted are required. Reprocessing costs should be estimated using appropriate methodologies and research is needed to ensure that life cycle assessment study designs can be better utilised to inform decision-making.

Indexed as

compression sleevescostsendoscopic devicesenvironmental impactsexternal fixatorslaparoscopic devicesophthalmic devicespatient safetypulse oximetersreprocessing single-use devices class Ireprocessing single-use devices class IIstockingssurgical instruments

Identifiers

PMID41725791
PMCPMC12921675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.