ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2023
Performance-Enhancing Materials in Medical Gloves.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2023. 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.
- Article
- Gloving the Surgeon:Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Review
- Biodegradable Polymers and Textiles.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- A Study on the Preparation of a Vulcanizing Mixture and Its Application in Natural Rubber Latex.Polymers · 2024Article
- Biodegradation of Nitrile Gloves as Sole Carbon Source ofPolymers · 2024Article
- Advanced Injection Molding Methods: Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical gloves, along with masks and gowns, serve as the initial line of defense against potentially infectious microorganisms and hazardous substances in the health sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical gloves played a significant role, as they were widely utilized throughout society in daily activities as a preventive measure. These products demonstrated their value as important personal protection equipment (PPE) and reaffirmed their relevance as infection prevention tools. This review describes the evolution of medical gloves since the discovery of vulcanization by Charles Goodyear in 1839, which fostered the development of this industry. Regarding the current market, a comparison of the main properties, benefits, and drawbacks of the most widespread types of sanitary gloves is presented. The most common gloves are produced from natural rubber (NR), polyisoprene (IR), acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), polychloroprene (CR), polyethylene (PE), and poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC). Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the conventional natural rubber glove manufacturing process and mitigation strategies, such as bioremediation and rubber recycling, are addressed. In order to create new medical gloves with improved properties, several biopolymers (e.g., poly(vinyl alcohol) and starch) and additives such as biodegradable fillers (e.g., cellulose and chitin), reinforcing fillers (e.g., silica and cellulose nanocrystals), and antimicrobial agents (e.g., biguanides and quaternary ammonium salts) have been evaluated. This paper covers these performance-enhancing materials and describes different innovative prototypes of gloves and coatings designed with them.
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.