↓ Skip to main content

The impact of the final rinse on the cytoxicity of critical products submitted for processing

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
The impact of the final rinse on the cytoxicity of critical products submitted for processing
Published in
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/s0080-623420150000700013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Souza, Rafael Queiroz de, Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina, Ikeda, Tamiko Ichikawa, Cruz, Áurea Silveira, Graziano, Kazuko Uchikawa, Souza, Rafael Queiroz de, Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina, Ikeda, Tamiko Ichikawa, Cruz, Áurea Silveira, Graziano, Kazuko Uchikawa

Abstract

Objective To assess the cytotoxicity of products subsequent to a cleaning process based on a validated standard operating procedure (SOP), and a final rinse with different types of water: tap, deionized, distilled, treated by reverse osmosis and ultra-purified. Method This was an experimental and laboratory study. The sample consisted of 130 hydrodissection cannulas, 26 per experimental group, characterized according to type of water used in the final rinse. The samples were submitted to internal and external contamination challenge with a solution containing 20% defibrinated sheep blood and 80% of sodium chloride 0.9%. Next, the lumens were filled with a ophthalmic viscosurgical device, remaining exposed for 50 minutes, and then were processed according to the validated SOP. Cytotoxicity was assessed using neutral red uptake assay. Results No cytoxicity was detected in the sample extracts. Conclusion The samples did not display signs of cytotoxicity, regardless of final rinse quality. The results obtained were reached by using only a validated cleaning operating procedure, based on the scientific literature, and on official recommendations and related regulation.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 40%
Unknown 3 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 1 20%
Chemistry 1 20%
Unknown 3 60%

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 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,985,263
of 6,975,036 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#167
of 241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,266
of 305,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,975,036 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 241 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,286 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.