Trial reportPloS one2026
Microbiological surveillance after automated reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes in routine clinical practice: A prospective randomized microbiological surveillance study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbiological surveillance is used to monitor the quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing, but prospective data comparing automated endoscope reprocessor systems under routine workflow conditions remain limited. We conducted an exploratory, single-center, prospective randomized surveillance study of 222 endoscope-use episodes involving patient-used forward-viewing upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopes. Endoscope-use episodes were allocated 1:1:1 to strongly acidic electrolyzed water, ozonated water, or peracetic acid using an Excel-generated random-number procedure (n = 74 each). Assigned reprocessing was performed after standardized bedside pre-cleaning and manual cleaning. Post-reprocessing samples were obtained from predefined external and internal sites. Surveillance success was defined as ≤20 colony-forming units per sample at all sampled sites and absence of predefined indicator organisms. Success was achieved in 67/74 (90.5%) strongly acidic electrolyzed-water episodes, 71/74 (95.9%) ozonated-water episodes, and 71/74 (95.9%) peracetic-acid episodes. Risk differences in surveillance success versus peracetic acid were -5.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -14.6 to 3.2) and 0.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.7 to 7.7), respectively. In exploratory post hoc non-inferiority analyses using a -5 percentage-point margin, non-inferiority was not demonstrated for either functional-water system. A -10 percentage-point margin supported ozonated water but not strongly acidic electrolyzed water. Post hoc scope-level sensitivity analyses were directionally consistent with the primary analysis and highlighted the influence of repeated failures in an individual physical endoscope. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory microbiological quality-assurance data, not as evidence of clinical infection risk or comparative clinical effectiveness. Study registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), UMIN000061627 (registered May 19, 2026; enrollment began November 8, 2024).
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.