ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Sterile gown and drape, and bouffant cap for thyroid FNA: preventing infections or producing unnecessary medical waste?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUltrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a very low-risk procedure. Despite this, there remains great variability in the use of protective equipment. Given the monetary and environmental costs of protective equipment, the difference in infection rates with full versus limited protective equipment was assessed.
methodsA total of 857 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed after undergoing thyroid FNAs at the main hospital and outpatient clinic site performed from 12/1/2020 to 11/30/2023. The hospital site operated with full protective equipment (bouffant, sterile gown, sterile gloves, and full body sterile drape), and the outpatient site with limited (sterile gloves, limited sterile paper drape) protective equipment. Two patients were excluded as no procedure was performed. Review for signs of infection within 30 days of procedure was performed using medical records, which was blinded to the extent of protective equipment utilization.
resultsNo infections were identified in either group, with 0/629 (0%, 95%CI 0-1%) in the full protective equipment group vs. 0/226 (0%, 95%CI 0-2%) in the limited protective equipment group. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between full and limited protective equipment use in thyroid FNA in the included 855 procedures (95%CI 0-1%). Two patients out of 629 (0.3%) in the full protective equipment group developed mild allergic reaction to topical antiseptic. The 226 procedures with limited protective equipment represent a saving of at least 204,530 g of CO2 equivalents, equivalent to driving a car for almost 3000 miles.
conclusionReducing the extent of protective equipment does not adversely affect the infection rate in thyroid FNAs. Given the inherent costs involved in the procurement and waste of protective equipment, reducing protective equipment use is warranted to reduce both the monetary and environmental impacts of waste.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39212685What 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.