Objectives
The two Cochrane reviews assessed different aspects of double-gloving and aimed to:
- assess whether additional glove protection reduces the number of underglove perforations1
- determine whether there is a clinically significant difference in using extra gloves for preventing needlestick injuries during surgery, as well as to evaluate whether double gloving has a negative impact on the healthcare professional's hand skills (dexterity)2
Methodology
- Tanner et al. (2006) compared single gloving, double gloving and coloured puncture-indicating systems, and included 31 randomised controlled trials measuring glove perforations1.
- The review from 2014 included 34 randomised controlled trials measuring glove perforations. Increasing numbers of glove layers (single, double, triple) were evaluated2.
- This review also included four additional gloving methods: glove liner, cloth overgloves, steel-weave overgloves and triple gloves2.
- Risk was determined through the measurement of perforations and self-reported needlestick injuries. Dexterity was measured via self-reporting and perforation rate2.
Adapted from Tanner et al 2006
Results
10 studies in the Tanner review could be systematically reviewed for perforation rates in single versus double gloving and demonstrated that double gloving was significantly more efficient in preventing perforations in the inner glove: 11% of single gloves perforated; 3% of undergloves perforated with double gloving1.
Significantly more punctures were detected with Biogel Indicator System gloves1.
Mischke et al. also demonstrated that double gloving significantly reduced the risk of inner glove perforation2. There was no significant difference in outer glove perforations between single and double gloving, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity whilst wearing two pairs of gloves2.
The evidence from these two systematic reviews confirms that double gloving provides better protection against blood contamination and inner glove perforations1,2.
