| Literature DB >> 33327350 |
Xiaomei Yu1, Qing Zhang2, Xingling Deng3, Jinxiu Liang1, Shuqin Hao4, Jianling Chen1, Heying Du1.
Abstract
We aimed to understand the evaluation of different Bowie-Dick test (B-D test) on the performance of pressure steam sterilization equipment in the case of simulated gas leakage, and we selected a pulsating vacuum steam sterilizer to set 4 different gas leakage levels: 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7 mbar/min during the B-D test phase. In terms of methods, 4 different brands of B-D test kits (devices) were tested at 4 different leakage rates, and a total of 48 experiments were conducted. The results from univariate analysis revealed that there are statistically significant differences in the judgment of test results among different personnel and brands. The results from multivariate logistic regression analysis displayed that the difference between different personnel was statistically significant (χ = 45.34, P < .001); the difference between different products was statistically significant (χ = 129.37, P < .001); and there was no statistically significant difference between different degree of leakage (χ = 6.99, P > .05). Result judgments of brand 1 and brand 2 are susceptible to subjective factors. The judgment of brand 3 is intuitive and consistent with the evaluation result of brand 4. In conclusion, the order of capacity to evaluate air leakage from best to worst is brand 4→brand 3→brand 1→brand 2.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33327350 PMCID: PMC7738145 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Univariate analysis of the judgment results (n = 1008).
| Variables | Level | Qualified number | Ratio of qualification (%) | ||
| Personnel | 1 | 112 | 33.3 | 4.26 | .001 |
| 2 | 306 | 73.2 | |||
| Product | 1 (Brand 1) | 187 | 74.2 | ||
| 2 (Brand 2) | 231 | 91.7∗ | 27.14 | .001 | |
| 3 (Brand 3) | 0 | 0†,‡ | .001 | ||
| 4 (Brand 4) | 0 | 0†,‡ | .001 | ||
| Leak rate | 1.1 mbar/min | ||||
| 1.3 mbar/min | 1.72 | .639 | |||
| 1.5 mbar/min | |||||
| 1.7 mbar/min |
Brand 1 comparing brand 2, χ2 = 27.14, P < .001.
Brand 3 and brand 4 comparing brand 1, χ2 = 297.31, P < .001.
Brand 3 and brand 4 comparing brand 2, χ2 = 426.46, P < .001.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of judgment results (n = 1008).
| 95% Confidence interval | ||||||||
| Variables | B | SE | Wald | df | Sig | Exp (B) | Upper limit | Lower limit |
| Personnel (1: control group) | −1.797 | 0.267 | 45.342 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.166 | ||
| Leak rate | 6.988 | 3 | 0.072 | 0.295 | ||||
| Brand | 129.374 | 3 | 0.000 | |||||
| Brand 4 (control group) | 1.000 | |||||||
| Brand 1 | 7.102 | 1.024 | 48.086 | 1 | 0.000 | 1214.610 | 163.172 | 9041.265 |
| Brand 2 | 8.620 | 1.047 | 67.756 | 1 | 0.000 | 5541.903 | 711.645 | 43,157.340 |
| Brand 3 | 0.000 | 1.418 | 0.000 | 1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.062 | 16.117 |
| Constant | −5.537 | 1.032 | 28.778 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.004 | ||