The surgeons were randomly selected one of two envelopes, number 1 representing the single-gloving method and number 2 representing the double-gloving method.
7 months
Glove perforation rate, duration of operation, position level of surgeons
No significant difference in the frequency of perforations between the double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). A significant reduction in glove perforations between the double-inner gloves (4.6%) compared with the single-gloves (18%) ().
Primary surgeons were randomly allocated to use either the single-gloving or the double-gloving method.
12 months
Glove perforation rate, duration of operation
A significant difference was found in the glove perforation rate between double-inner glove (6.09%) and single gloving group (22.73%). No significant difference between the glove perforation rates in single gloves (22.73%) and in double-outer gloves (19.5%).
Surgeons were randomised by envelop to use either blunt needle or sharp needle
6 months
Glove perforation rate, evaluation of the blunt needle
A significantly higher number of surgical procedures with perforations using the sharp needle () than with the blunt tapered needle. Detection rate was low (21%). Blunt tapered needles are less convenient
Patients with obstetric lacerations were randomized to repair with either blunt or sharp needles.
21 months period
Glove perforation rate, evaluation of the blunt needle, and position level of surgeons
No significant difference in the glove perforation rate between blunt and sharp needles. There was poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test. Blunt needles were reported more difficult to use ()
Patients requiring cesarean delivery were assigned randomly to receive closure with either blunt or sharp needles
21 months
Glove perforation rate, evaluation of the blunt needle, and duration of operation
A significant reduction in total glove perforation rate for the primary surgeon with blunt needles (7.2%) compared with sharp needles (17.5%) as well as for the assistant surgeons. Poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test. Physicians reported low satisfaction with blunt needles compared with sharp needles ()
Patients were equally divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 2, sterile surgical gloves were used; in group 2, a nonsterile disposable inner glove was used under a sterile surgical glove.
Not reported
Glove perforation rate, duration of operation
No significant statistical difference was found between 2 double gloving methods in terms of inner glove perforations
Patients born in even years were operated on with double gloving and those born in uneven years were operated on with single gloving
2 months
The glove type, the operating time, the type of surgery, the detection rate and location of perforation
A low number of perforations of the inner glove of the double-gloving system were detected. Higher detection of perforation in double-glove system (). The longer of the operating duration, the higher rate of perforation
One class was randomly assigned to receive the educational intervention, and the other served as a comparison group, receiving standard education.
4 months
Changes in knowledge and self-reported universal precautions behaviour, observed adherence to universal precautions, and self-reported needlestick injuries
The group that received the intervention scored significantly higher than the standard education group on both knowledge () and behaviour (), and were less likely to experience needlestick injuries ()
The surgeons, assistants and scrub nurses were randomized into one of two groups. In group one the operating team was using powder-free single gloves and group two used a powder-free double-gloving system.
Not reported
Glove perforation rate, detection of the perforation, and the position of the participants
A significant difference between single gloves and inner indicator gloves (). The surgeon in indicated gloving group obtained high detection rate of glove perforation ()
The gloving pattern was randomized into two groups of the equal number by sealed envelopes
Not reported
Glove perforation rate, detection of the perforation, evaluation of double gloving
In double-gloving pattern, 32 glove perforations were observed, of which 22 were in the outer glove and 10 in the inner glove. Majority of glove perforations (83.3%) went unnoticed. Double gloving was accepted by majority of surgeons.
Before the operations, the surgeons were randomised to use either single gloves, double indicator gloves or a combination of two regular surgical gloves on top of each other
2 months
Glove perforation rates, detection of perforations, operation types, and duration of operation
Significant difference in perforations of the inner glove in two of indicator gloves and in the regular combination gloves when the outer glove was perforated ()
The choice to single versus double glove was left to the discretion of the individual surgeon.
7 months
Glove perforation rate, the association between position of the surgeon and perforation rate
11% of single glove sets contained a perforation whereas only 2% of double glove sets contained a corresponding defect in the inner and outer gloves ()
