ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
A non-inferiority trial comparing manual and automated high-level disinfection for reprocessing of transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound probes.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- UV-C LED Disinfection of Flexible Rhinolaryngoscopes: Microbiological, Economic, Environmental, and Legislative Evaluation.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Manual chemical methods are commonly used for ultrasound probe disinfection but are known to be operator dependent and subject to variability. Automated ultraviolet-C (UV-C) light-emitting diode (LED) disinfection represents a chemical and mercury free alternative, however, clinical evidence comparing UV-C LED to conventional disinfectants for high-level disinfection of ultrasound probes remains limited. In this single-centre non-inferiority study conducted in the departments of gynaecology, obstetrics and urology of a Belgian university hospital, automated UV-C LED disinfection was compared to manual chlorine dioxide disinfection for the reprocessing of transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound probes. Following clinical use, probes were decontaminated by healthcare practitioners alternating between both reprocessing methods. Samples were collected after treatment and processed for microbial analysis to assess the effectiveness of the decontamination process. A total of 296 probes were included, comprising 86 transabdominal and 210 transvaginal probes. UV-C LED disinfection achieved effectiveness rates of 92.86% for transabdominal probes and 97.17% for transvaginal probes, compared with 79.49% and 93.27%, respectively for chlorine dioxide disinfection. Positive samples following UV-C disinfection yielded single colonies whereas chlorine dioxide treated probes showed greater variability in colony counts and species diversity. Although the total reprocessing time for UV-C disinfection was longer, manual handling times were comparable between both methods. Here, we demonstrated that UV-C LED disinfection was non-inferior to chlorine dioxide disinfection for reprocessing of transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound probes under routine conditions.
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.