Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162245›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2022

Evaluation of external contamination on the vial surfaces of some hazardous drugs that commonly used in Chinese hospitals and comparison between environmental contamination generated during robotic compounding by IV: Dispensing robot vs. manual compounding in biological safety cabinet.

Hao Ml, Wang T, Zhu Jq, Song Yj, Gong Tj, Zou Lk, Liu J, Yan Jf

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hao MlSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Wang TDepartment of Pharmacy, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China.
Zhu JqDepartment of Pharmacy, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China.
Song YjDepartment of Pharmacy, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China.
Gong TjDepartment of Pharmacy, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China.
Zou LkSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Liu JSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yan JfSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1812-6328
Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital · CNUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aims of the study were to evaluate the external contamination of hazardous drug vials used in Chinese hospitals and to compare environmental contamination generated by a robotic intelligent dispensing system (WEINAS) and a manual compounding procedure using a biological safety cabinet (BSC).

methodsCyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and gemcitabine were selected as the representative hazardous drugs to monitor surface contamination of vials. In the comparative analysis of environmental contamination from manual and robotic compounding, wipe samples were taken from infusion bags, gloves, and the different locations of the BSC and the WEINAS robotic system. In this study, high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with double mass spectrometer (HPLC-MS/MS) was employed for sample analysis.

results(1) External contamination was measured on vials of all three hazardous drugs. The contamination detected on fluorouracil vials was the highest with an average amount up to 904.33 ng/vial, followed by cyclophosphamide (43.51 ng/vial), and gemcitabine (unprotected vials of 5.92 ng/vial, protected vials of 0.66 ng/vial); (2) overall, the environmental contamination induced by WEINAS robotic compounding was significantly reduced compared to that by manual compounding inside the BSC. Particularly, compared with manual compounding, the surface contamination on the infusion bags during robotic compounding was nearly nine times lower for cyclophosphamide (10.62 ng/cm

conclusionsThe external contamination occurred extensively on some hazardous drug vials that commonly used in Chinese hospitals. Comparison analysis for both compounding procedures revealed that robotic compounding can remarkably reduce environmental contamination.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsOccupational ExposureRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresChinaCyclophosphamideDrug CompoundingEnvironmental MonitoringEquipment ContaminationFluorouracilHospitalsHumansTandem Mass SpectrometryAntineoplastic AgentsCyclophosphamideFluorouracilbiological safety cabinetdrug contaminationHazardous drugsoccupational exposurerobotic system

Identifiers

PMID34162245
PMCPMC9465550
OpenAlexW3174053404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.