ReviewEndoscopy international open2026
Effectiveness of drying in digestive endoscope reprocessing: Systematic review on residual droplets and microorganisms.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 2026. 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
Background and study aims: Despite endoscope reprocessing, residual droplets remain in digestive endoscope working channels. Inadequate drying of digestive endoscope working channels may promote microbial reproduction, increasing risk of infection among patients. This review was designed to summarize the current status of digestive endoscope and assess effectiveness of drying methods in preventing residual droplets and microorganisms in digestive endoscope. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE up until 2025 were searched to identify eligible articles focused on methods of digestive endoscope drying and the status of endoscope drying. The revised JBI quality assessment tool was used to determine the quality of each included article by two independent reviewers. Results: This review included 16 articles; six focused on residual droplets, six evaluated microbial growth, and four assessed both residual droplets and microbial growth following different digestive endoscope drying methods. Compared to the single drying method, the combination of novel automated drying techniques and guideline-recommended conventional drying methods reported lower levels of residual fluid and microbial growth in endoscope channels. Conclusions: Automated drying, particularly with drying cabinets, reduces residual moisture and microbial contamination on digestive endoscopes more effectively than manual drying, warranting its inclusion in standard reprocessing protocols.
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.