Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35812009›Full record

ArticlePleura and peritoneum2022

Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC.

Hubert Benoist, Clarisse Eveno, Sarah Wilson, Nicolas Vigneron, Jean-Marc Guilloit, Rémy Morello, Nicolas Simon, Pascal Odou, Guillaume Saint-Lorant

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Bibliometric analysis of occupational exposure in operating room from 1973 to 2022.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hubert BenoistNormandie Université, UNICAEN, UNIROUEN, ABTE, Centre de Lutte contre le Cancer F. Baclesse, Caen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1295-2191
Clarisse EvenoDepartment of Digestive Surgery, CHU , Lille, France.
Sarah WilsonCHU de Caen Normandie, Normandie Université, UNICAEN, Biostatistic and Clinical Research, Caen, France.
Nicolas VigneronCHU de Caen Normandie, Normandie Université, UNICAEN, Biostatistic and Clinical Research, Caen, France.
Jean-Marc GuilloitDepartment of Surgery, Comprehensive Cancer Center F. Baclesse, Caen, France.
Rémy MorelloCHU de Caen Normandie, Normandie Université, UNICAEN, Biostatistic and Clinical Research, Caen, France.
Nicolas SimonUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365 - GRITA - Groupe de Recherche sur les Formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, Lille, France.
Pascal OdouUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365 - GRITA - Groupe de Recherche sur les Formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, Lille, France.
Guillaume Saint-LorantNormandie Université, UNICAEN, UNIROUEN, ABTE, Centre de Lutte contre le Cancer F. Baclesse, Caen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8429-6539
Normandie Université · FRUniversité de Lille · FROnco Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories. Methods: This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions. Results: Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC. Conclusions: This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.

Indexed as

antineoplastic drugsHIPECoccupational risksPIPAC

Identifiers

PMID35812009
PMCPMC9166181
OpenAlexW4223906351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.