Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42723127›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026

Resilient surgical instrument reprocessing during healthcare disasters and outbreaks: a systematic review of barriers, preparedness gaps and policy strategies.

Mohammad Sadegh Nematollahi, Iman Farahi-Ashtiani, Lida Shams

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. 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

3 authors.

Mohammad Sadegh NematollahiStudent Research Committee, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Iman Farahi-AshtianiDepartment of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Lida ShamsDisaster Management Research Group, Workplace Health Promotion Research Center, Research Institute for Health Sciences and Environment, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Shams_Lida@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical instrument reprocessing is essential for infection prevention and continuity of surgical care. However, evidence on barriers and adaptive strategies for maintaining reprocessing capacity during healthcare disruptions remains fragmented. This systematic review synthesized evidence on reprocessing vulnerabilities, barriers, and adaptive strategies across infectious outbreaks, emergency preparedness contexts, infrastructure disruptions, and resource-constrained settings.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched through February 2026 in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies evaluated reusable surgical instrument reprocessing during infectious outbreaks, infrastructure disruptions, emergency preparedness contexts, or other healthcare disruption settings. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and quality appraisal, with data extraction conducted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer, using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools appropriate to study design. Given substantial methodological and contextual heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261324153).

resultsEleven studies from nine countries were included, comprising outbreak investigations, preparedness surveys, cohort and case-control studies, case series, and quasi-experimental or implementation-oriented studies. Most studies focused on infectious outbreaks associated with failures in reprocessing complex reusable devices. Recurrent barriers included incomplete cleaning workflows, inadequate lumen decontamination, equipment malfunction or contamination, contaminated water or rinsing systems, limited emergency preparedness, workforce gaps, and incomplete instrument-tracking systems. Infrastructure disruptions and limited sterilization capacity were associated with delays or interruptions in surgical services. Reported adaptive strategies included standardized multistep cleaning protocols, environmental monitoring, workforce training and simulation, instrument traceability systems, mobile or container-based sterilization capacity, and contingency reprocessing approaches.

conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that challenges in surgical instrument reprocessing across healthcare disruption contexts are associated with interacting operational, infrastructural, technological, and organizational factors rather than isolated technical failures alone. Strengthening routine reprocessing reliability, workforce preparedness, environmental monitoring, infrastructure reliability, instrument traceability, and flexible reprocessing capacity may support continuity and safety of surgical services during healthcare disruptions. However, the evidence base remains small and heterogeneous and is weighted toward infectious outbreak investigations and observational studies. Further empirical research is needed to evaluate scalable and context-appropriate approaches to reprocessing preparedness across diverse emergency, disaster-related, and resource-constrained settings.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksEquipment ReuseInfection ControlSurgical InstrumentsDisastersHumansPublic Health InfrastructureResource-Limited SettingsDisaster planningInfection controlResource-limited settingsSterilizationSurgical instruments

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.