Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430795›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024

A randomized trial comparing the intraoperative durability of double-gloving with Biogel® surgical gloves to 3 comparators.

Michelle Doll, Asmaa Namoos, Le Kang, Jibanananda Satpathy, Michael J Feldman, Anthony Cassano, Jaime Bohl, Michel B Aboutanos, Brian Cameron, Jason Kim and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03344354 (InDure), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03344354 nacompletednot on this map

InDure: A Clinical Investigation Comparing the In-Use Durability of Double-gloving With Biogel® Surgical Gloves to Three Comparators

TypeinterventionalSponsorMolnlycke Health Care ABRan2018 to 2022Enrolled3,507ConditionsGloves, SurgicalArmsBiogel, Ansell, Cardinal, Medline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Michelle DollVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2477-1240
Asmaa NamoosVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Le KangVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jibanananda SatpathyVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Michael J FeldmanVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Anthony CassanoVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jaime BohlVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Michel B AboutanosVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2090-1992
Brian CameronVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jason KimVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Celine AsburyVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Mahdee HaqueVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Olivia HessVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2237-9069
Henrik AhlbomMolnlycke Healthcare, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gonzalo BearmanVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine and compare the intraoperative durability of 4 major surgical glove brands. Design Setting and Participants: This study is a randomized open-label clinical trial in which surgical gloves from 4 manufacturers are randomized to 5 surgical subspecialty study groups: (1) orthopedic surgery, (2) neurosurgery, (3) colorectal surgery, (4) trauma or acute general surgery, and (5) cardiac and plastic surgeries. The study was divided into 10 periods, with a cross-over design, and was conducted at a tertiary care academic medical center. Participants were licensed and certified physicians, physicians-in-training, scrub nurses, or technicians working within the sterile field. Interventions: Participants from each study group were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 surgical glove manufacturer types and subsequently rotated through the other 3 glove brands such that each participant acted as their own control in the sequential cross-over design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to determine and compare the intraoperative failure rate of Biogel® Sterile Surgical undergloves against sterile surgical undergloves from 3 other manufacturers, both as a combined competitor group and individually. Results: There were no differences between brands with respect to the primary outcome of underglove intraoperative failures. Brand 1 wearers were slightly more likely to detect glove failures when they occurred. Conclusion: The durability of surgical gloves intraoperatively is similar across 4 major glove manufacturers. Detection of intraoperative failures is infrequent, though specific glove characteristics may promote enhanced detection. Recognition of glove perforations intraoperatively is important in the maintenance of a maximally sterile field. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03344354.

Identifiers

PMID39430795
PMCPMC11488470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.