SynthesisJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2026
Diagnostic and Clinical Performance of Single-Use Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
Synthesis in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic procedures are fundamental in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders. However, concerns over pathogen transmission have driven the development of single-use and partially single-use endoscopes (reusable endoscopes with disposable components). A comprehensive synthesis of comparative evidence is essential to inform decisions regarding clinical adoption.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, and case series. Outcomes assessed included technical performance, diagnostic accuracy, infection risk, and adverse events. We also included systematic reviews estimating infection risk associated with exogenous pathogens for reusable gastrointestinal endoscopes. Summary data were pooled using a random-effects model where appropriate, and other findings synthesized narratively. The protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42024496913).
resultsOf 6979 records screened, 50 studies (965 960 patients) were included. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), crossover from single-use (EXALT Model D) to reusable duodenoscopes occurred in 7% of cases (95% CI 6-9). Across endoscope types, single-use and partially single-use devices demonstrated similar or slightly reduced technical performance and diagnostic accuracy compared with reusable counterparts. Estimated infection risks from contaminated reusable endoscopes ranged from 0.01% to 0.8%, although these figures are limited by high risk of detection and reporting bias.
conclusionsThe current evidence does not support wholesale replacement of reusable gastrointestinal endoscopes with single-use or partially single-use models. More robust and standardized data are needed to quantify infection risks from reusable endoscopes and inform evidence-based policy and procurement decisions.
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.