Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel

  1. Christina Mischke1,
  2. Jos H Verbeek2,*,
  3. Annika Saarto3,
  4. Marie-Claude Lavoie4,
  5. Manisha Pahwa5,
  6. Sharea Ijaz2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group

Published Online: 7 MAR 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 26 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009573.pub2


How to Cite

Mischke C, Verbeek JH, Saarto A, Lavoie MC, Pahwa M, Ijaz S. Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009573. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009573.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, Kuopio, Finland

  2. 2

    Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, Kuopio, Finland

  3. 3

    Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Turku, Finland

  4. 4

    University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

  5. 5

    University of Toronto, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

*Jos H Verbeek, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, PO Box 310, Kuopio, 70101, Finland. jos.verbeek@ttl.fi.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 7 MAR 2014

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. 'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. 'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Double versus single, outcome: 1.3 Inner glove perforations
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 2 Matched inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 3 Needlestick injuries.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 4 Incidences of blood contamination.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 5 Dexterity: VAS score.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Double versus single gloves, Outcome 6 Dexterity: outer glove perforations.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Triple versus double gloves, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Double special versus double normal, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Double special versus double normal, Outcome 2 Dexterity: VAS score.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Triple special versus double normal, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Thicker versus thinner, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Thicker versus thinner, Outcome 2 Matched perforations.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Thick versus glove combinations, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Double indicator versus standard, Outcome 1 First glove: inner perforations.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Double indicator versus standard, Outcome 2 First glove: matched perforations.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Double indicator versus standard, Outcome 3 All used gloves: inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Double indicator versus standard, Outcome 4 Dexterity: VAS score.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis: prevalence, double versus single, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis: income of countries, double versus single, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis: exposure, double versus single, Outcome 1 Inner glove perforations.