ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Unnoticed Glove Perforations during Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hands Deserve Better: A Systematic Review of Surgical Glove Indicator Systems and Identification of Glove Perforation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Hands Deserve Better: A Systematic Review on Surgical Glove Fit and Provider Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Higher rate of undetected intraoperative damage of latex-free surgical gloves worn by scrub nurses.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Leading to Overnight Stays in Pediatric Surgical Outpatients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- New Insights into Cutaneous Asepsis: Synergism between Pfaffia and Rosemary Extracts.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessment of glove integrity across various dental specialties in a dental school setting.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- Advances and Future Challenges of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVarious studies have depicted the incidence of glove perforations during open (OS) and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the incidence of macroscopic and microscopic glove perforations during MIS and OS.
methodsThe review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE) were systematically searched for comparative studies depicting the glove perforation rates during MIS and OS. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for both the outcomes (dichotomous) and the Mantel-Haenszel method was utilized for the estimation of pooled RR. The methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent investigators using the Downs and Black scale. The main outcomes of the study were the proportion of gloves with gross (macroscopic) perforations and the proportion of gloves with microscopic perforations.
resultsFour comparative studies including a total of 1428 gloves (435 from the MIS group) were included. Pooling the data demonstrated no difference in the incidence of macroscopic glove perforations among the MIS and OS groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.54,
conclusionsWhen compared to OS, the macroscopic glove perforation rate during MIS showed no significant difference. The incidence of microscopic glove perforations was significantly higher during OS as compared to MIS. However, due to the moderate risk of bias of the available comparative studies, the level of evidence of these studies is limited.
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.