Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009573
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extra gloves or special types of gloves versus a single pair of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 31 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The high prevalence of glove perforation detected by this method raises concerns over the effectiveness of latex gloves in protecting clinicians' hands. A similar concern was reported by 2 Cochrane reviews that found that double gloving significantly reduces perforations of the innermost gloves and percutaneous exposure of the clinicians' hands (22,23). Further studies looking into the cost-effectiveness of using double, or even triple gloves are needed in order to modify the currently accepted universal precautions with regards to glove wearing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…The high prevalence of glove perforation detected by this method raises concerns over the effectiveness of latex gloves in protecting clinicians' hands. A similar concern was reported by 2 Cochrane reviews that found that double gloving significantly reduces perforations of the innermost gloves and percutaneous exposure of the clinicians' hands (22,23). Further studies looking into the cost-effectiveness of using double, or even triple gloves are needed in order to modify the currently accepted universal precautions with regards to glove wearing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%