Trial reportVeterinary surgery : VS2016
Colored Indicator Undergloves Increase the Detection of Glove Perforations by Surgeons During Small Animal Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delphi consensus recommendations for preventing and treating cardiac implantable electronic device infections beyond current guidelines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of sterile glove usage on digital tactile sensitivity using the Grating Orientation Task.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- A randomized trial comparing the intraoperative durability of double-gloving with Biogel® surgical gloves to 3 comparators.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Article
- Observational
- Incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforations: experience from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.BMC surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether use of colored indicator gloves affects perforation detection rate and to identify risk factors for glove perforation during veterinary orthopedic surgery. STUDY
designProspective randomized controlled trial. SAMPLE POPULATION: 574 double pairs of gloves worn during 300 orthopedic surgical procedures (2,296 gloves).
methodsPrimary and assistant surgeons double-gloved for all orthopedic surgical procedures. Type of inner glove (standard or colored indicator) was randomized for the first 360 double pairs of gloves worn by surgeons during 180 procedures. Perforations detected by surgeons were recorded and gloves changed if requested. For a further 120 procedures, indicator gloves were used exclusively. All gloves were leak-tested after surgery to identify perforations. Association between potential risk factors and perforation was explored using multivariate logistical regression analysis.
resultsGlove perforations occurred during 43% of surgeries with a mean of 2.3 holes/surgery. Inner gloves were intact in 63% of glove pairs where an outer perforation occurred. Intraoperative perforation detection was improved when colored indicator gloves were worn (83% sensitivity) vs. standard gloves (34% sensitivity; P<.001). Independent risk factors for perforation were placement of plates and/or screws (P=.001; OR=2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0), placement of an external skeletal fixator (P=.002; OR=7.0; 95% CI, 2.1-23.8), use of orthopedic wire (P=.011; OR=2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.7), and primary surgeon being board-certified (P=.016; OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1).
conclusionIncreased surgeon recognition of glove perforations through use of colored indicator gloves enables prompt change of gloves if perforation occurs and may reduce potential contamination of the surgical site.
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.