ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Exploring the occupational protection potential of an intravenous compounding robot across the cytotoxic drug workflow.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate an intravenous compounding robot's occupational protection across the full workflow (compounding, packaging, administration) by measuring cytotoxic drug residues, and to assess its cleaning protocol and cross-contamination risk for subsequent non-cytotoxic drug compounding. Methods: (1)Questionnaire survey: Cytotoxic drug handlers at various workflow stages were surveyed for occupational protection and awareness. (2) Experimental study: Cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil were selected for a 3-day robotic vs. manual compounding comparison. Surface wipes samples from 168 sites were quantified by HPLC-MS/MS. (3) Recommendations were derived by integrating the questionnaire and experimental results. Results: The survey revealed that all respondents (100%) acknowledged that their work stage involved an occupational exposure risk and that protective measures were necessary, but only compounding staff strictly adhered to protection, 18.2% of packaging staff, 14.3% of transport workers lacked gloves, while only 45.5% of nurses always wear gloves each time. Experimental data showed that robotic compounding substantially reduced surface residues at compounding sites (gloves and gown sleeves) compared with manual compounding, with manual groups showing sporadic extreme values (e.g., fluorouracil on gloves: 834.340 ng/cm Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that the intravenous compounding robot shows potential for reducing occupational exposure across compounding, packaging, and administration, with the most pronounced effect observed during compounding. However, exposure risks persist in packaging and administration, particularly in manual operations, and inadequate protective awareness among staff calls for improved supervision and training. Additionally, initial findings indicate that internal contamination after cytotoxic compounding is low and can be further reduced by cleaning, supporting the tentative feasibility of using the same robot for subsequent non-cytotoxic compounding. Cross-contamination risk appears low and controllable, as yet, it has not been possible to translate residue value directly into actual cancer risks for staff, further validation is needed.
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.