ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sterility of the operative field during surgery is imperative in reducing the risk of infection. Most commonly, double gloves are worn by surgeons. When contamination occurs, the top gloves are changed intra-operatively. No studies have investigated which glove changing technique is best. Therefore, in this study, we aim to identify which top glove changing technique causes the least surface contamination. Methods: Glitterbug™ (UV fluorescent powder) was applied to the top gloves of 3 individuals who changed their top gloves according to a randomised method - Method 1: 3 pairs worn, remove the outer pair; Method 2: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, replace unassisted; and Method 3: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, and replace assisted by a scrub nurse. A blinded investigator inspected for Glitterbug™ contamination under UV light. Results: Two hundred and ten trials were performed and two types of contamination were identified, namely, direct contact and airborne spread. For absolute contamination, Method 1 had 59/64 (92%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 49/65 (75%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 64/81 (79%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant ( Conclusions: Method 2 had a statistically significant lower contamination rate overall, with Method 3 having the lowest direct contamination rate. We believe that wearing 2 gloves, removing the top glove and replacing it, either assisted or unassisted, could decrease surface contamination of the sterile field.
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.