↓ Skip to main content

Current Practice of Duodenoscope Reprocessing

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Current Practice of Duodenoscope Reprocessing
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11894-016-0528-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Kim, V. Raman Muthusamy

Abstract

Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multi-drug resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Unlike prior episodes of endoscope-transmitted infections, the latest outbreaks have occurred despite strict adherence to duodenoscope reprocessing guidelines. The current standard for all flexible endoscope reprocessing includes pre-cleaning, leak testing, an additional manual cleaning step, and high-level disinfection. When these steps are strictly followed, the risk of infection transmission during endoscopy is exceedingly rare. However, due to its complex design, the duodenoscope may not be able to be adequately disinfected using the current reprocessing standards. Supplemental measures to enhance scope reprocessing have subsequently been recommended to reduce the infection risk in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. These methods are likely short-term solutions that have yet to be validated regarded their effectiveness. Additional approaches to monitor the quality of duodenoscope reprocessing may also be useful. Ultimately, a definitive, yet logistically feasible, method of duodenoscope reprocessing is required to ensure the safety of our patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#22,830,981
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,635
of 346,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.