↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing

Overview of attention for article published in Infection and Drug Resistance, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing
Published in
Infection and Drug Resistance, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/idr.s159243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gheorghe G Bălan, Irina Roşca, Elena-Laura Ursu, Florica Doroftei, Andra-Cristina Bostănaru, Eugen Hnatiuc, Valentin Năstasă, Vasile Şandru, Gabriela Ştefănescu, Anca Trifan, Mihai Mareş

Abstract

Duodenoscopes have been widely used for both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated infections involving multidrug-resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Plasma activated water (PAW) has been widely considered an effective agent for surface decontamination and is increasingly used for disinfection of medical equipment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the duodenoscopes currently on market are suited for the repeated use of PAW and to test the efficacy of PAW for their disinfection. In order to evaluate the disinfection efficacy and the required time of contact, the duodenoscope samples were contaminated by immersing them in fasted-state simulated intestinal fluid containing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, prior to PAW exposure. In order to test the duodenoscope polymer compatibility with PAW, a challenge test was conducted by immersing the samples in PAW for 30 minutes daily for 45 consecutive days. Significant reductions in bacterial populations were achieved after 30 minutes of PAW treatment, indicating a high-level disinfection. Atomic force microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were used to demonstrate that repeated PAW treatment of duodenoscope coating polymer samples did not result in significant differences in morphological surface between the treated and untreated samples. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis also showed no significant differences between the elemental composition of the duodenoscope coating polymer samples before and after repeated PAW treatment. Considering these preliminary results, PAW could be considered as a new alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 24 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,349,555
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Infection and Drug Resistance
#528
of 1,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,937
of 326,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection and Drug Resistance
#10
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,693 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 326,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.