ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2008
Cut-resistant protective gloves in pathology--effective and cost-effective.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ergonomic Criteria and Usability Testing of Cut-Resistant Protective Gloves: An Experimental Study.La Medicina del lavoro · 2025Article
- Exploring Occupational Health Challenges in Pathology: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Indian Pathologists.Cureus · 2024Article
- Work-related Hazards Among Pathologists and Residents of Pathology:Results of a Cross-sectional Study in Iran.Iranian journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Universal Precautions Provide Appropriate Protection during Autopsies of Patients with Infectious Diseases.The American journal of pathology · 2020Review
- Observational
- Occupational health risks of pathologists--results from a nationwide online questionnaire in Switzerland.BMC public health · 2012Article
- [Autopsies 2010. Is death still teaching the living?].Der Pathologe · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cutting injuries and needle-stitch injuries constitute a potentially fatal danger to both pathologists and autopsy personnel. We evaluated such injuries in a large German institute of pathology from 2002 to 2007 and analysed the effect of the introduction of cut-resistant gloves on the incidence of these injuries. In the observation period, 64 injuries (48 cutting injuries and 16 needle-stitch injuries) were noted in the injury report books. Most injuries were located at the non-dominant hand, preferentially at the index finger and the thumb. Around one fifths of the injuries were at the side of handedness. The average number of injuries per month was 1.22 for the 50 months prior to the introduction of cut-resistant gloves, more than seven times higher than after their introduction (0.158; 19 months; p < 0.001). Considering the medical and administrational costs of such injuries, cut-resistant protective gloves are an effective and cost-effective completion of personal occupational safety measures in surgical pathology and autopsy. We strongly recommend the use of such gloves, especially for autopsy personnel.
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.