The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of blood transmission through latex and nitrile glove materials
Abstract
AIMS: To compare blood transmission through nitrile, single and double layer latex glove materials in simulated needlestick injuries. METHODS: Experiments involved nitrile, single and double layer latex gloves. A cutting suture needle was dipped into a specimen of blood and then immediately jabbed through the glove material into a cell containing saline. This process was repeated using the same blood specimen with different glove materials, plus a control experiment with no glove material. Other factors, including the angle, speed and depth of needle penetration, were controlled through the use of a testing machine. Following needle punctures, samples were taken from the suspension contained in each cell and examined under blind conditions. Median red blood cell (RBC) count was used as a measure of the quantities of blood transmitted through the different gloves. RESULTS: Nitrile glove material was associated with reduced transmission of RBCs compared to single layer latex. Double layer latex gloves provided better protection than single layer latex or nitrile gloves. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in protecting against blood transmission in the context of needlestick injuries, single layer nitrile gloves are superior to single layer latex gloves, but double gloving with latex gloves provides better protection than either single layer latex or nitrile.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The risk of blood contact and contamination during venous blood sampling is reduced using gloves.
“There is evidence showing that this risk is reduced using gloves [45], [46].”
From Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI Recommendation for venous blood sampling (2018) · cites this paper as [45]
The Results (p. 4) report that all tested glove materials significantly reduced blood transfer compared with no glove. However, the Methods (p. 1) describe simulated needlestick injuries, not venous blood sampling; the paper does not establish a reduced risk of blood contact and contamination during that procedure. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Windberger, U. B., Bartholovitsch, A., Plasenzotti, R., Korak, K. J., & Heinze, G. (2003) · Experimental Physiology · doi:10.1113/eph8802496 · Cited by 340
Percutaneous Injuries During Surgical Procedures
Tokars, J. I. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480210061033 · Cited by 289
Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection
Tanner, J., & Parkinson, H. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003087.pub2 · Cited by 281
Yazdanpanah, Y., Carli, G. D., Miguéres, B., Lot, F., Campins, M., Colombo, C., Thomas, T., Deuffic‐Burban, S., Prevot, M. H., Domart, M., et al. (2005) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/497131 · Cited by 209
Efficacy of gloves in reducing blood volumes transferred during simulated needlestick injury
Mast, S. T., Woolwine, J. D., & Gerberding, J. L. (1993) · Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/168.6.1589 · Cited by 198
Arthur, L. O., Bess, J. W., Waters, D. J., Pyle, S. W., Kelliher, J. C., Nara, P. L., Krohn, K. J. E., Robey, W. G., Langlois, A. J., & Gallo, R. C. (1989) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.63.12.5046-5053.1989 · Cited by 102
Quantity of Blood Inoculated in a Needlestick Injury From Suture Needles
Bennett, N. T., & Howard, R. J. (1994) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/00006254-199406000-00014 · Cited by 59
Performance of latex and nonlatex medical examination gloves during simulated use
Korniewicz, D. M., El‐Masri, M. M., Broyles, J. M., et al. (2002) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1067/mic.2002.119512 · Cited by 58
Johnson, G. K., Nolan, T. F., Wuh, H. C. K., & Robinson, W. S. (1991) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1086/646374 · Cited by 33
Hanssen, H. H. L., Wetzels, G. M. R., Benzina, A., van der Veen, F. H., Lindhout, T., & Koole, L. H. (1999) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(1999)48:6 · Cited by 32
Standardization of needlestick injury and evaluation of a novel virus-inhibiting protective glove
Krikorian, R. K., Lozach-Perlant, A., Ferrier-Rembert, A., Hoerner, P., Sonntag, P., Garín, D., & Crance, J. (2007) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2007.05.008 · Cited by 29
Virus‐inhibiting surgical glove to reduce the risk of infection by enveloped viruses
Bricout, F., Moraillon, A., Sonntag, P., Hoerner, P., Blackwelder, W. C., & Plotkin, S. A. (2003) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.10342 · Cited by 26
Lefebvre, D. R., Strande, L. F., & Hewitt, C. W. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.282 · Cited by 26
Johnson, G. K., Nolan, T. F., Wuh, H. C. K., et al. (1991) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.2307/30148306 · Cited by 16
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI Recommendation for venous blood sampling
Simundic, A.-M., Bölenius, K., Cadamuro, J., Church, S., Cornes, M. P., van Dongen-Lases, E. C., Eker, P., Erdeljanovic, T., Grankvist, K., Guimaraes, J. T., et al. (2018) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · doi:10.1515/cclm-2018-0602 · Cited by 240
Metadata
- Authors
- Mansouri, M., Tidley, M., Sanati, K. A., & Roberts, C.
- Affiliations
- Princess of Wales Hospital (GB)
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- ORCID
- Roberts, C.
- Venue
- Occupational Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-22
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-210
- ISSN
- 0962-7480 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-8405
- OpenAlex
- W2117199683
- Semantic Scholar
- 314ee555aa8e2e9bf8871f734ff65cb40f1ecdde
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Occupational Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Textile materials and evaluations
- Keywords
- needlestick injuries, blood transmission, nitrile gloves, latex gloves, double gloving, glove material comparison, red blood cell count, occupational exposure to blood
- MeSH terms
- Cell Count, Equipment Design, Erythrocytes, Gloves, Surgical, Health Personnel, Humans, Latex, Materials Testing, Nitriles, Occupational Exposure, Needlestick Injuries, Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional, Statistics, Nonparametric
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
