Comparing non‐sterile to sterile gloves for minor surgery: a prospective randomised controlled non‐inferiority trial

Abstract

ACTRN12612000698875.

Alcoholic versus aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis: the AVALANCHE trial

“…We did not adjust for the possible effect of clustering by gen eral practitioner or by practice; however, in previous similar trials, 7,9,10,15 these factors did not produce a large design effect. Had we adjusted for a potential clustering effect, the estimated variances would likely have been larger, and the nonsignificant results would have been emphasized.…”

“…The baseline infection rate was lower than we predicted on the basis of previous studies. [7][8][9][10] Our sample size calculation was based on a 5% absolute reduc tion in surgical site infection (from a 10% baseline rate) being clinically relevant. It is possible that general practitioners might have reconsidered the margin for superiority if the baseline rate were 7%.…”

“…[7][8][9]15 Excision loca tion was recorded on a body site map. Clinicians at each practice site examined patient records to complete missing data.…”

“…4,7,9,10,15,22 The antiseptic solution was applied using sterile forceps and gauze over an area 1 cm beyond the surgical field. Drapes, gloves, sutures, local anesthetic and dressings were the same in the 2 study arms.…”

“…Previous research in the Mackay region 7,[9][10][11]15 and recent interviews (unpublished data) showed that most general practi tioners in Mackay use chlorhexidine in preference to povidone iodine, partly because of the perceived "messiness" and skin staining associated with povidone iodine. Therefore, in the cur rent study, we examined the difference between alcoholic and aqueous chlorhexidine, rather than comparing chlorhexidine with povidone iodine.…”