ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
The Intriguing History of Gloves and Their Application to Surgery.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many millennia ago, gloves were devised for protection, first from the cold and then to protect the hands from injury. In time, they became associated with social class, wealth and as a sign of privilege. With status and prestige followed the glamour and commercialism of fashion. Surgeons had little interest in gloves until relatively recently unless they were dealing with foul and putrid wounds. The first serious use of gloves in surgery was to protect hands from the irritating effects of antiseptics such as mercuric chloride-until Joseph Bloodgood noticed that they also markedly reduced surgical infection rates. Soon glove-wearing became routine in surgery and the drive, promoted by glove manufacturers, moved to expansion of their use. An example of this is the increased use of double-gloving for elective soft tissue surgery. The obsession to reduce infection at all costs (based on theoretical grounds from observing glove micro-perforations after surgery) without any evidence of actual benefit to patient or surgeon (no RCT has shown reduction in SSIs or blood-borne transmission of infection from double-gloving) has led to actual harm, particularly if the environmental damage and huge costs to healthcare services are taken into account. Review of the history of surgical gloves suggests that some accepted dogma should be challenged and that guidelines for glove wearing would be better aligned to the available evidence if they are to minimize harm.
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.