ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Time to Hang Up the Gloves: A Scoping Review of Evidence on Non-Sterile Glove Use During Intravenous Antimicrobial Preparation and Administration.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultivating Environmentally Sustainable Emergency Departments with GreenED.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Time to Hang Up the Gloves: A Scoping Review of Evidence on Non-Sterile Glove Use During Intravenous Antimicrobial Preparation and Administration.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo systematically summarise evidence related to the use of non-sterile gloves when preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials.
designScoping review.
methodsA rigorous scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework and the modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review guidelines (2018). Five databases and grey literature were included in the search. Literature published between 2009 and 2024 was included. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science) and the grey literature were searched in February 2024.
resultsThree studies were included; however, none directly addressed correct non-sterile glove use during intravenous antimicrobial preparation or administration in clinical practice.
conclusionWe found no evidence to support the use of non-sterile gloves in intravenous antimicrobial preparation. There is an urgent need for rigorous research to inform the development of clear guidelines on non-sterile glove use to underpin evidence-based decision-making in nursing and other health professional education, improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare. IMPLICATIONS: Inappropriate use of non-sterile gloves for preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials hinders correct hand hygiene practices and increases healthcare-associated infections, healthcare costs and waste. IMPACT: A critical gap in the existing evidence was a key finding of this review, highlighting the urgency for evidence-based guidelines to improve patient safety outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare. REPORTING
methodThis scoping review adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting checklist. PATIENT OF PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY4J2).
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.