ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2011
Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- The Use of Single-Use Medical Gloves in Doctors' Practices and Hospitals.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Review
- Commentary by the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) on the indication-based use of disposable medical gloves in the healthcare sector.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024Article
- Development and Comparison of Complementary Methods to Study Potential Skin and Inhalational Exposure to Pathogens During Personal Protective Equipment Doffing.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019Article
- Self-contamination during doffing of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers to prevent Ebola transmission.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018Article
- A pilot study to assess use of fluorescent lotion in patient care simulations to illustrate pathogen dissemination and train personnel in correct use of personal protective equipment.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2016Article
- Environment and body contamination: a comparison of two different removal methods in three types of personal protective clothing.American journal of infection control · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGloves are a necessary contact precaution to prevent transmission of infectious pathogens that spread by direct or indirect contact with an infected person or a contaminated environment. This article reports a study investigating hand and environmental contamination levels when health care workers (HCWs) followed two different methods of removing gloves at two distances from the rubbish bin.
methodsFifty HCWs performed a personal or causal glove removal method (pretest) and a Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-recommended glove removal method (posttest) at distances of 2 feet and 3 feet from the rubbish bin after the application of fluorescent solution (the simulated contaminant) onto their gloved hands.
resultsThe incidence of the small patch of fluorescent stain (<1 cm(2)) on the front of the doffed gloves was significantly lower in the posttest than in the pretest. The incidence of small and large patches (>1 cm(2)) on the front of the doffed gloves and on the cover of the rubbish bin was significantly lower at 3 feet than at 2 feet. Health care assistants had significantly higher levels of contamination than other HCWs in the pretest but not in the posttest. There was no significant difference in hand contamination rate between pretest and posttest based on distance from the rubbish bin and type of HCW.
conclusionThe impact of the glove removal procedure and the distance to the bin in which used gloves are discarded should be taken into consideration on a daily basis, along with the supervision of infection control measures by minor staff.
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.